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 wrote:That seems quite a complex way to conceptualise things...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...
Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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.The manifestation of an unmanifested potential (power, ability, disposition) is "a possible future reality", but the potential itself is an actual present reality.
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".
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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.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.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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?Fanman wrote: ↑May 21st, 2021, 9:50 amThat 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.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.
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".
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
A real tree isn't both outside and inside my head.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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.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?
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
I strongly tend toward 4: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
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.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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.)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.
- 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?
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.
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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?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.)
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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?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.
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.)
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
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 pmHow can there be a "nonactual manifestation"? In my view, a manifestation is necessarily actual.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.)
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."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?
"Its" in this sentence refers to "a potential", and not to "our concept of [a potential]"!
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
My apologies, I misread what you said and misrepresented your meaning.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]"!
- 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?
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.Belindi wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2021, 4:04 amThen 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?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.
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.)
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.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is it ever coherent to claim that potentials are real existents?
"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.Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2021, 6:34 pmWhy 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.Belindi wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2021, 4:04 amThen 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?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.
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.)
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.
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.
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