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
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Fanman wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:I define it as the opposite of abstract concepts - as referring to what we sometimes call the physical world; objects; things that we propose to exist independently of how we're thinking about them; independently of our minds...
That seems quite a complex way to conceptualise things...
Really? What it amounts to is that real things are things that aren't just in your head. It's a pretty everyday, ordinary definition of "real". I don't think it's complex.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

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

Post by Fanman »

Consul,
The manifestation of an unmanifested potential (power, ability, disposition) is "a possible future reality", but the potential itself is an actual present reality.
That is pretty much is how I’m thinking. Because in order to be "a possible future reality", the potential must have some form of existence in the present reality, be it abstract or actual.

An employer or supervisor may see potential in an employee based upon their skill set - their skill set is actual. But the perception of their potential is abstract. So their potential would exist in both an actual and abstract sense. If their potential is realised then claiming that the potential was real is justified - in both the actual and abstract sense.

I'm not sure if that is right, but that's how I see things. So we could say that the ontology of potential is both an actual and abstract phenomena - denoted by the fact that it could lead to "a possible future reality".
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

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

Post by Fanman »

Steve3009,
Really? What it amounts to is that real things are things that aren't just in your head. It's a pretty everyday, ordinary definition of "real". I don't think it's complex.
OK, but not everyone has the ability to see that you meant that, to do the reduction. Anyway, I agree. For something to be real, I think we have to be able to justify its ontology. That may not be possible to do in a complete sense, but we have to have something to go on.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
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 »

Fanman wrote: May 21st, 2021, 9:50 am
Consul wrote:The manifestation of an unmanifested potential (power, ability, disposition) is "a possible future reality", but the potential itself is an actual present reality.
That is pretty much is how I’m thinking. Because in order to be "a possible future reality", the potential must have some form of existence in the present reality, be it abstract or actual.

An employer or supervisor may see potential in an employee based upon their skill set - their skill set is actual. But the perception of their potential is abstract. So their potential would exist in both an actual and abstract sense. If their potential is realised then claiming that the potential was real is justified - in both the actual and abstract sense.

I'm not sure if that is right, but that's how I see things. So we could say that the ontology of potential is both an actual and abstract phenomena - denoted by the fact that it could lead to "a possible future reality".
I'm not sure what you mean by "abstract" here. That unmanifested potentials are not (directly, noninferentially) knowable? That I don't know what somebody or something is capable of doing or becoming unless I see them doing or becoming it?
"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 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 21st, 2021, 8:21 am Really? What it amounts to is that real things are things that aren't just in your head. It's a pretty everyday, ordinary definition of "real". I don't think it's complex.
A real tree isn't both outside and inside my head.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

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

Post by Fanman »

Consul,
I'm not sure what you mean by "abstract" here. That unmanifested potentials are not (directly, noninferentially) knowable? That I don't know what somebody or something is capable of doing or becoming unless I see them doing or becoming it?
What I mean by abstract is, "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence" [definition from Bing]. So if we observe potential in someone, our observation or recognition of it is fundamentally an idea - which does not have physical existence as the actual potential (the skill-set) does.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
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 20th, 2021, 11:16 am Presupposing realism about properties in general, there are the following ontological options:

["Power" is used as an umbrella term also covering potential(itie)s, abilities, capabilities, and capacities.]

1. All properties are (purely) categorical properties or (powerless) qualities.

2. All properties are (purely) dispositional properties or powers.

3. Some properties are (purely) categorical properties or qualities, and some properties are (purely) dispositional properties or powers.
3.1 Powers are independent of, ungrounded in qualities.
3.2 Powers are dependent on, grounded in qualities.

4. Properties are both categorical and dispositional, both qualities and powers, power-qualities, powerful qualities.
<QUOTE
I strongly tend toward 4:

Arguably, what a thing can be and become, what it can do, and what can be done to it depends on and is determined by what and how it is, i.e. on its nature and its qualities. (Quantities may be regarded as quantifiable or measurable qualities.)

So I'd say that (natural) properties are both qualities and potencies (potential(itie)s, powers, abilities, dispositionalities), and that there is a conceptual distinction but no real difference between a property's qualitativity and its potentiality (or dispositionality).
By having a potent or powerful quality, a unitary "potency-quality", its possessor is thereby empowered or enabled to act (or be acted upon) in some way (under certain conditions or circumstances); or its possessor is thereby disposed to behave in a certain way (under certain conditions or circumstances).
Moreover, if potencies are (empowering/enabling) qualities, it is readily explicable why they aren't mere possibilities but actual properties had by their bearers here and now, since qualities are precisely such properties.

Using old Latin phrases, there is a distinction between a quality as a modus essendi (= mode/way of being, "be-mode"), a potentiality or dispositionality as a modus possendi (= mode/way of being able, "can-mode"), and an action or behavior as a modus operandi (= mode/way of operating/acting/behaving, "do-mode").
Assuming that qualities and potencies are identical properties, a modus essendi is also a modus possendi—a unitary modus essendi ac possendi ("be-can-mode")—, whose manifestation is a modus operandi.
"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 »

Fanman wrote: May 21st, 2021, 12:39 pmWhat I mean by abstract is, "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence" [definition from Bing]. So if we observe potential in someone, our observation or recognition of it is fundamentally an idea - which does not have physical existence as the actual potential (the skill-set) does.
There is a difference between a potential as an actual, here-and-now property and our concept/idea of it and its nonactual manifestation. (We can certainly have concepts/ideas of nonactual, nonexistent things.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post :) and I think the subject matter was probably nailed down th re. That is, potential lies in structure, time and place. Of course they are real. If potentials were not real then you couldn't do science. Science routinely looks at potentials so as to make predictions.

Some here see potentials as only part of the map that we use to navigate the territory (to borrow an Obvious Leo-ism). That they are not real in the present moment.

But the map is part of reality too - how could it not be? Everything is real, including illusions, just that some things are more real than others. Technically, speaking, more potent than others. Potency lies in structure, as I noted, and within the context of "position and fields", as you put it. Potential exist in an entity's structure and dynamics in the context of its environment, time, position and trajectory.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

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

Post by Fanman »

Consul,
There is a difference between a potential as an actual, here-and-now property and our concept/idea of it and its nonactual manifestation. (We can certainly have concepts/ideas of nonactual, nonexistent things.)
How can there be a "nonactual manifestation"? In my view, a manifestation is necessarily actual. Our recognition of potential is a perception. I think it depends on whether we classify ideas as being real – which is a whole other topic. I would call ideas real, inasmuch as they exist, but anything inside the mind has an existence that is abstract – as I think Steve was eluding to. I would call the perception of potential an idea, perception, view or recognition, but I wouldn't call it a manifestation. Perhaps this is a semantic issue?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
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: May 21st, 2021, 5:55 pm Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post :) and I think the subject matter was probably nailed down th re. That is, potential lies in structure, time and place. Of course they are real. If potentials were not real then you couldn't do science. Science routinely looks at potentials so as to make predictions.

Some here see potentials as only part of the map that we use to navigate the territory (to borrow an Obvious Leo-ism). That they are not real in the present moment.

But the map is part of reality too - how could it not be? Everything is real, including illusions, just that some things are more real than others. Technically, speaking, more potent than others. Potency lies in structure, as I noted, and within the context of "position and fields", as you put it. Potential exist in an entity's structure and dynamics in the context of its environment, time, position and trajectory.
Then potential is the same as causation. But how can this be when what causes what is chaotic? How can we gauge potential other than by what seems to be useful knowledge?

Sure the map is part of reality, and maps are often proximal causes of violent change e.g. the Zionists' map that legitimates Israel's gradual colonisation of Palestine.

Illusions are real but the present state of neuroscience is that they are caused by some deficiency or other. ('Deficiency' as defined by degree of danger to life or degree of suffering.)
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 »

Fanman wrote: May 21st, 2021, 6:13 pm
Consul wrote:There is a difference between a potential as an actual, here-and-now property and our concept/idea of it and its nonactual manifestation. (We can certainly have concepts/ideas of nonactual, nonexistent things.)
How can there be a "nonactual manifestation"? In my view, a manifestation is necessarily actual.
A manifested power certainly has an actual manifestation, but an unmanifested one has not. The manifestation of an unmanifested power is not an actuality but a mere possibility (with merely possible things being nonexistent things).
Fanman wrote: May 21st, 2021, 6:13 pmOur recognition of potential is a perception. I think it depends on whether we classify ideas as being real – which is a whole other topic. I would call ideas real, inasmuch as they exist, but anything inside the mind has an existence that is abstract – as I think Steve was eluding to. I would call the perception of potential an idea, perception, view or recognition, but I wouldn't call it a manifestation. Perhaps this is a semantic issue?
I wrote: "There is a difference between a potential as an actual, here-and-now property and our concept/idea of it and its nonactual manifestation."

"Its" in this sentence refers to "a potential", and not to "our concept of [a potential]"!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

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

Post by Fanman »

Consul,
I wrote: "There is a difference between a potential as an actual, here-and-now property and our concept/idea of it and its nonactual manifestation."

"Its" in this sentence refers to "a potential", and not to "our concept of [a potential]"!
My apologies, I misread what you said and misrepresented your meaning.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Belindi wrote: May 22nd, 2021, 4:04 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 21st, 2021, 5:55 pm Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post :) and I think the subject matter was probably nailed down th re. That is, potential lies in structure, time and place. Of course they are real. If potentials were not real then you couldn't do science. Science routinely looks at potentials so as to make predictions.

Some here see potentials as only part of the map that we use to navigate the territory (to borrow an Obvious Leo-ism). That they are not real in the present moment.

But the map is part of reality too - how could it not be? Everything is real, including illusions, just that some things are more real than others. Technically, speaking, more potent than others. Potency lies in structure, as I noted, and within the context of "position and fields", as you put it. Potential exist in an entity's structure and dynamics in the context of its environment, time, position and trajectory.
Then potential is the same as causation. But how can this be when what causes what is chaotic? How can we gauge potential other than by what seems to be useful knowledge?

Sure the map is part of reality, and maps are often proximal causes of violent change e.g. the Zionists' map that legitimates Israel's gradual colonisation of Palestine.

Illusions are real but the present state of neuroscience is that they are caused by some deficiency or other. ('Deficiency' as defined by degree of danger to life or degree of suffering.)
Why would you say that potential is the same as causation? That would only be the case if the probability of a potential was 100% and, at the quantum scale, that has not been observed due to, as you noted, chaos.

Illusions need not be the product of illness. They can come in dreams, daydreams, creative thoughts and under the influence of powerful stimuli or its lack, eg. drugs, starvation, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, high-G training machines.

Both maps and illusions are clearly part of reality. They are, in effect, two-dimensional reality. Flatland. Everything is real, but not everything is equally potent.
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: May 22nd, 2021, 6:34 pm
Belindi wrote: May 22nd, 2021, 4:04 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 21st, 2021, 5:55 pm Steve, this time you actually did not reply to my last post :) and I think the subject matter was probably nailed down th re. That is, potential lies in structure, time and place. Of course they are real. If potentials were not real then you couldn't do science. Science routinely looks at potentials so as to make predictions.

Some here see potentials as only part of the map that we use to navigate the territory (to borrow an Obvious Leo-ism). That they are not real in the present moment.

But the map is part of reality too - how could it not be? Everything is real, including illusions, just that some things are more real than others. Technically, speaking, more potent than others. Potency lies in structure, as I noted, and within the context of "position and fields", as you put it. Potential exist in an entity's structure and dynamics in the context of its environment, time, position and trajectory.
Then potential is the same as causation. But how can this be when what causes what is chaotic? How can we gauge potential other than by what seems to be useful knowledge?

Sure the map is part of reality, and maps are often proximal causes of violent change e.g. the Zionists' map that legitimates Israel's gradual colonisation of Palestine.

Illusions are real but the present state of neuroscience is that they are caused by some deficiency or other. ('Deficiency' as defined by degree of danger to life or degree of suffering.)
Why would you say that potential is the same as causation? That would only be the case if the probability of a potential was 100% and, at the quantum scale, that has not been observed due to, as you noted, chaos.

Illusions need not be the product of illness. They can come in dreams, daydreams, creative thoughts and under the influence of powerful stimuli or its lack, eg. drugs, starvation, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, high-G training machines.

Both maps and illusions are clearly part of reality. They are, in effect, two-dimensional reality. Flatland. Everything is real, but not everything is equally potent.
"Science routinely looks at potentials so as to make predictions". That is why I claim potential is the same as causation . Scientists, same as everyone else,same as all living creatures that can learn, base predictions on known past effects. Scientific predictions are never 100% probable, and if some theory claims the predictions are 100% that theory is not science but pseudo science.


I think I must have been confusing illusions with delusions.I am still not sure I know the difference without consulting a dictionary. However I agree with what you write about illusions. I wonder if illusions and delusions are a continuum.If there is a clinical definition that separates illusions and delusions this definition would be based on objective tests of brains and neurochemicals not only on what psychiatrists say. Also, of course, with no stigma attached to either's findings. Even if it is true that delusions are clearly demarcated as separate from illusions they, same as illusions, are part of reality; so I agree with you.

I agree with your last paragraph. However in view of chaos theory what we deem to more or less potent is social reality only. My bias however is towards maps, in the forms of ideologies, are more potent than technologies or fears of death.
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