Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Consul »

Belindi wrote: May 30th, 2021, 6:41 am Dracula, men, and wolves are all concepts. Every and each concept is a collection of attributes.

Attributes are concepts too.

It so happens that men, and wolves , possess fixed attributes of time and space whereas Dracula is attributable not to concepts of fixed time and space but to other concepts such as [drinks blood] and [teeth] which is shared with men and wolves.

Naturally we dispute the significance to our prosperity of concepts that don't include concepts of time and space. However it is prudent for men to consider the importance of concepts that are not spatio-temporal, because the latter are leading causes of human behaviours. Obviously Dracula and vampires are trivial, whereas Buddhism and capitalism are important.
There is a relevant distinction between concepts (ideas) or predicates and attributes or properties. The former have semantic properties (meaning, reference), while the latter lack such properties. (That's why Husserl distinguishes between "categories of meaning" and "categories of objects" in his ontology.) For example, it makes sense to ask "What's the meaning of the concept <mass>?", but it makes no sense to ask "What's the meaning of a particle's mass?"

It is not the case that "Dracula, men, and wolves are all concepts," because what are concepts are the concept of Dracula, the concept of a man, and the concept of a wolf, none of which is Dracula, a man, or a wolf. Nor is it the case that "[e]very and each concept is a collection of attributes," because concepts can only be composed of other concepts.

Of course, concepts have properties; but this is not to say that they are properties.

We do have concepts of non-spatiotemporal things too such as abstract mathematical objects and concepts qua (platonistically) abstract predicate-meanings (and constituents of equally abstract propositions).

As for the ontology of concepts, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: May 30th, 2021, 10:33 amOf course, concepts have properties; but this is not to say that they are properties.
Having a concept is a property of somebody (e.g. the property of having the concept <wolf>), but the concept had is not.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: May 30th, 2021, 10:15 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 29th, 2021, 9:58 pmThere is much happening in reality that cannot be directly accessed. Scientists may observe galaxies many light-years away, but they cannot read the minds of eight billion people and billions of other animals with simpler minds - countless zettabytes of inaccessible information processing. Inferences can be made, but they are superficial.

Within each mind are numerous representations of the physically real and unreal (perceptual and cognitive errors). Within a mind, vampires can be just as real as vampire bats. These objects of consciousness, these representations of vampires and vampire bats are real events in themselves. These mental "sketches" of real or imagined entities are no less real than physical sketches. That is, the representations are real events that happen in time, whether the entities they abstractly and roughly depict are real or not.
I've never denied the reality of mental representations of vampires, but no thought or mental image of a vampire is a vampire. It's true that mental representations of unreal things are as real as ones of real things; but it is not the case that "[w]ithin a mind, vampires can be just as real as vampire bats," simply because no mind can contain vampires or vampire bats.
No mind needs to contain vampires or vampire bats. Minds don't contain anything but representations - it doesn't contain your spouse, car and clouds either - and we can at least agree that those representation are real phenomena in themselves (and they can be more potent than we assume at first glance, as Belinda noted above).

Your final statement is actually accidental eliminative materialism, brushing over subjectivity and reducing it to objective terms, which is a category error. The image in a believer's mind of a vampire is just as real to them as the image of a vampire bat. Such individualistic subjectivity does not matter in science, sure, but it sure matters to individuals!

Ultimately, our societal decisions about the nature of reality tend to be decided by consensus - between either a team of experts or the general public. The situation sets up the idea that a person's subjective perceptions is either "right" or "wrong". But in subjectivity, there is no right or wrong, it just "is". So, if the idea of real vampires happens to be part of a person's schema, then that must be accepted as it is (even if it a delusion).
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2021, 8:26 pmYour final statement is actually accidental eliminative materialism, brushing over subjectivity and reducing it to objective terms, which is a category error.
No, to say that subjective experiences are (fundamentally) complexes of objective neural processes is not to commit a category mistake, to deny them, or to devalue them. If to say so were to commit a category mistake, then ontological dualism would be an a priori knowable necessary truth—which it is not!
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2021, 8:26 pmThe image in a believer's mind of a vampire is just as real to them as the image of a vampire bat. Such individualistic subjectivity does not matter in science, sure, but it sure matters to individuals!
What is "real to me" is what seems real to me or what I take to be real, but what is real doesn't depend on being taken or believed to be real by me.

By the way, I think mental images are not really pictures like photographs. In my view, imagination is the simulation of (sensory) perception; so mental images aren't really pictures of things but simulated sense-impressions of them. Visualizing a horse is similar to seeing a horse itself rather than to seeing a picture of it.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: May 30th, 2021, 10:33 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2021, 8:26 pmYour final statement is actually accidental eliminative materialism, brushing over subjectivity and reducing it to objective terms, which is a category error.
No, to say that subjective experiences are (fundamentally) complexes of objective neural processes is not to commit a category mistake, to deny them, or to devalue them. If to say so were to commit a category mistake, then ontological dualism would be an a priori knowable necessary truth—which it is not!
No. You judged subjectivity in terms of objectivity. Subjectivity is fundamentally and categorically not objective.

Consul wrote: May 30th, 2021, 10:33 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2021, 8:26 pmThe image in a believer's mind of a vampire is just as real to them as the image of a vampire bat. Such individualistic subjectivity does not matter in science, sure, but it sure matters to individuals!
What is "real to me" is what seems real to me or what I take to be real, but what is real doesn't depend on being taken or believed to be real by me.

By the way, I think mental images are not really pictures like photographs. In my view, imagination is the simulation of (sensory) perception; so mental images aren't really pictures of things but simulated sense-impressions of them. Visualizing a horse is similar to seeing a horse itself rather than to seeing a picture of it.
It's true that mental images are impressions rather than visually exact representations. Then again, so is our visual input before being organised by the brain. However, we have to take meaning into account, what something subjectively means to a person and, in that, for one who believes in vampires, their impression of vampires will be no less real to them than vampire bats. Whether it's real to you or other enthusiastic materialists is moot. In subjectivity, actual reality need not matter at all. That it usually does pertains to what's needed to survive, but for disturbed individuals, the reality of the mythical and physical is equivalent.

Again, whether rational people agree or not is entirely moot here. Thoughts are thoughts, regardless of content, and we all agree that thoughts are real phenomena.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Belindi »

Sy Borg wrote:
Your final statement is actually accidental eliminative materialism, brushing over subjectivity and reducing it to objective terms, which is a category error.


Consul wrote: No, to say that subjective experiences are (fundamentally) complexes of objective neural processes is not to commit a category mistake, to deny them, or to devalue them. If to say so were to commit a category mistake, then ontological dualism would be an a priori knowable necessary truth—which it is not!



Sy Borg wrote: No. You judged subjectivity in terms of objectivity. Subjectivity is fundamentally and categorically not objective.[/quote]

Belinda replies: One aspect of what is the case is that "subjective experiences are (fundamentally) complexes of objective neural processes " as Consul said. Objective neural processes are part of what is extended matter.(I omit Consul's "fundamentally")
The other aspect of what is the case is that subjective experiences , same as objective experiences, are what is the case. Subjective experiences are mind.

Both mind and extended matter are true, and we can choose which aspect of nature we look at. There is no need to presume ontological dualism.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: May 31st, 2021, 2:49 am
Consul wrote: May 30th, 2021, 10:33 pmNo, to say that subjective experiences are (fundamentally) complexes of objective neural processes is not to commit a category mistake, to deny them, or to devalue them. If to say so were to commit a category mistake, then ontological dualism would be an a priori knowable necessary truth—which it is not!
No. You judged subjectivity in terms of objectivity. Subjectivity is fundamentally and categorically not objective.
Of course, I would contradict myself by saying that subjective experiences are nonsubjective; but that's not what I'm saying, because what I'm saying is that subjective experiences are fundamentally composed of nonsubjective entities—and there's nothing contradictory about saying so. One can consistently hold that certain nonexperiential processes collectively constitute an experience. A subjective whole can have nonsubjective parts.
Sy Borg wrote: May 31st, 2021, 2:49 amIt's true that mental images are impressions rather than visually exact representations. Then again, so is our visual input before being organised by the brain. However, we have to take meaning into account, what something subjectively means to a person and, in that, for one who believes in vampires, their impression of vampires will be no less real to them than vampire bats. Whether it's real to you or other enthusiastic materialists is moot. In subjectivity, actual reality need not matter at all. That it usually does pertains to what's needed to survive, but for disturbed individuals, the reality of the mythical and physical is equivalent.
Again, whether rational people agree or not is entirely moot here. Thoughts are thoughts, regardless of content, and we all agree that thoughts are real phenomena.
Yes, the subjective, experiential contents of consciousness are always real even if its intentional objects are unreal. Hallucinations and imaginations of fictional things are real mental phenomena with a real content, but without a real object.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by The Beast »

Mental representations whether realized or unrealized are made of the same substance. Therefore, this existing substance cannot be non-existent. They are all coherent insofar they can be explained. Human representation of objects is a system of sense representation of human local realities pertaining to humans. Yet all living creatures may have the same substance to formulate mental representations. The duality object/representation as human real object representation explained by senses is as coherent as non-object representations expressed by the mind if they can be explained. Here, Sense coherency is of the same substance as consciousness coherency and less coherent if sense coherency must be explained by the mind like in science or malfunction.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: May 31st, 2021, 11:11 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 31st, 2021, 2:49 amIt's true that mental images are impressions rather than visually exact representations. Then again, so is our visual input before being organised by the brain.

However, we have to take meaning into account, what something subjectively means to a person ... [so] for one who believes in vampires, their impression of vampires will be no less real to them than vampire bats. Whether it's real to you or other enthusiastic materialists is moot. In subjectivity, actual reality need not matter at all. That it usually does pertains to what's needed to survive, but for disturbed individuals, the reality of the mythical and physical is equivalent.

Again, whether rational people agree or not is entirely moot here. Thoughts are thoughts, regardless of content, and we all agree that thoughts are real phenomena.
Yes, the subjective, experiential contents of consciousness are always real even if its intentional objects are unreal. Hallucinations and imaginations of fictional things are real mental phenomena with a real content, but without a real object.
Agreed. We got there :)
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?

Post by popeye1945 »

Experience is always true to its biology, it may not agree with what the reality is, it never the less is true to the biology that experiences it. I suppose the health of that biology would necessarily taken in the cognitive and thus the cultural memes of its society. If the body is to estranged from the healthy norm one's survival would be in doubt, but all the while being sure of its own perceptions as to what is real.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021