Ontology of Being
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Chasw wrote:a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm.
So would you say that life forms aren't composed of physical matter?chewybrian wrote:A, B and C seem to stack to me. It's like having a boat and adding a mast and a sail to make a sailboat. D is...well, who knows, but you could reasonably just drop D if you want to narrow the choices.
And, regarding C, what counts as "higher order"? My understanding is that we're proposing that each of these 4 categories represents a mutually exclusive type of entity, in a way that is ontologically, objectively real, as opposed to just a way that we're thinking about it and dividing it up. But that would mean the difference between "higher order" and "lower order" animals is some kind of ontologically real hard dividing line. I can't see how that could possibly be true.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ontology of Being
I would say they stack, like I said before. You have a boat. It isn't a sailboat unless or until you add a sail. You have a human body. It isn't a person unless there is consciousness or the possibility of reawakening it. I am composed of physical matter but something else important has been added which makes me quite different from a dead body. We can't track and identify this other thing in the way we can all physical things. It doesn't have a mass, a speed, a location, smell, etc. It has correlation with things that do, but the experiencer that is me can not be quantified and tracked. It doesn't walk like a duck, it doesn't quack like a duck, so...Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 6:08 amChasw wrote:a) the physical universe, b) life forms, c) mental activity in the minds of higher order animals and d) beings and actions in an unseen spirit realm.So would you say that life forms aren't composed of physical matter?chewybrian wrote:A, B and C seem to stack to me. It's like having a boat and adding a mast and a sail to make a sailboat. D is...well, who knows, but you could reasonably just drop D if you want to narrow the choices.
And, regarding C, what counts as "higher order"? My understanding is that we're proposing that each of these 4 categories represents a mutually exclusive type of entity, in a way that is ontologically, objectively real, as opposed to just a way that we're thinking about it and dividing it up. But that would mean the difference between "higher order" and "lower order" animals is some kind of ontologically real hard dividing line. I can't see how that could possibly be true.
I know it is very unfashionable to be a dualist, but I can't pretend I don't think this way. I can't assume that *I* must be physical or material just because other things are. I don't see that I am fully bound by cause and effect, even though I see that these other things are. I can't explain why, which only reinforces in my mind that I am on the right track. If I was material, I could explain why without making bold assumptions that don't match my experience. It's one thing to assume what is in a black hole a gabillion miles away. It's quite another to assume what is right in front of me at every waking moment and to say that I need to accept unproven assumptions about myself that contradict my own perception.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
OK. When you previously said "they stack" I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by it. I thought it might have been a figure of speech like "that stacks up for me" meaning "that makes sense to me". So, yes, I would also say that they stack, in the sense that one sits (conceptually/metaphorically) on top of the other. But I think I'd use the stacking metaphor slightly differently to you.chewybrian wrote:I would say they stack, like I said before. You have a boat. It isn't a sailboat unless or until you add a sail. You have a human body. It isn't a person unless there is consciousness or the possibility of reawakening it.
Yes, I agree that there is something else important which doesn't have mass, a speed, smell, etc. (But it does have location. I don't believe it's located anywhere other than in my physical body.) Where we seem to disagree is in thinking that the something else is something other than relations between bits of matter. A standard analogy is with computer software. Software doesn't have a mass, a speed, smell, etc. We can, in a very real sense, regard it as a kind of "thing". But I don't think anyone would take that to mean that we need to have a dualist attitude towards computers and think of them as composed of two separate types of stuff - hardware and software. I think everyone understands that software exists physically as the relationships between bits of matter.I am composed of physical matter but something else important has been added which makes me quite different from a dead body. We can't track and identify this other thing in the way we can all physical things. It doesn't have a mass, a speed, a location, smell, etc. It has correlation with things that do, but the experiencer that is me can not be quantified and tracked. It doesn't walk like a duck, it doesn't quack like a duck, so...
I know that's what you think because you've said it before in other topics.I know it is very unfashionable to be a dualist, but I can't pretend I don't think this way. I can't assume that *I* must be physical or material just because other things are. I don't see that I am fully bound by cause and effect, even though I see that these other things are. I can't explain why, which only reinforces in my mind that I am on the right track. If I was material, I could explain why without making bold assumptions that don't match my experience. It's one thing to assume what is in a black hole a gabillion miles away. It's quite another to assume what is right in front of me at every waking moment and to say that I need to accept unproven assumptions about myself that contradict my own perception.
One thing I would add to this for now: Not being a dualist like that (being a materialist for example) doesn't mean that you have to conclude that you're "fully bound by cause and effect" in a way that implies you're an automaton or a computer.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ontology of Being
I was just about to comment on the part of the point you missed, but here it is.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 5:31 am It's also a joke about how reductionist physics is, with the result that it can say precise things about physical systems, but lots of simplifying assumptions have to be made about those systems. The "assume a spherical horse in a vacuum" thing is poking fun at those simplifying assumptions.
"Who cares, wins"
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ontology of Being
I don't see how it could be otherwise, unless I attribute decision making capacities to raindrops or sewing machines. If all material things are bound by cause and effect, and I am material, then what else could I think? I can admit that I am material and give up thinking that I could affect outcomes in the world by making *real* choices, or I could accept my will for what it appears to be and conclude that I must be something else. Obviously I choose the latter. I've never even seen in theory how compatibilism is supposed to work. Every attempt at explaining it seems hollow and silly to me, and ignores the elephant(s) in the room.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ontology of Being
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
But materialism, as an ontological position (a position as to what things really exist, and what is the case about the real world) doesn't necessarily go with the opinion that all material things are bound by cause and effect. My view on causality (as I said in a topic I started a few days ago) is that it is a general principle that we propose based on our observations of specific instances. i.e. a principle arrived at via inductive reasoning. That would mean that "bound by" would be the wrong term to use. It would be a descriptive principle, not the prescriptive one that "bound by" implies.chewybrian wrote:I don't see how it could be otherwise, unless I attribute decision making capacities to raindrops or sewing machines. If all material things are bound by cause and effect, and I am material, then what else could I think?...
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
It depends on what you mean by "hard". It depends on the length of the error bars. I know, as well as I know anything, that everything associated with my personality happens in the middle of my head, plus or minus, let's say, 8 inches.chewybrian wrote:p.s. We know the locations of brain activities that correlate with certain types of thoughts or feelings, but we don't have a hard location for the experience itself.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ontology of Being
I think the real dualism here is that you - like the rest of us! - are an intelligent individual that thinks and acts. But you also co-operate and collaborate with the universe of which you are an indivisible part. In that sense, perhaps your 'will' is a lesser thing? Each of us is an actively-contributing part of the whole. 'Will' is simply a perspective on this, I think.chewybrian wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 10:19 am I don't see how it could be otherwise, unless I attribute decision making capacities to raindrops or sewing machines. If all material things are bound by cause and effect, and I am material, then what else could I think? I can admit that I am material and give up thinking that I could affect outcomes in the world by making *real* choices, or I could accept my will for what it appears to be and conclude that I must be something else. Obviously I choose the latter. I've never even seen in theory how compatibilism is supposed to work. Every attempt at explaining it seems hollow and silly to me, and ignores the elephant(s) in the room.
"Who cares, wins"
- Chasw
- Posts: 153
- Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
- Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel
- Location: Seattle, USA
- Contact:
Re: Ontology of Being
Good point, chewy. I'm of the opinion neuroscientists will soon be able to correlate electromagnetic emissions from the brain with an person's raw feels, e.g., anger, arousal, fear, etc., followed by even finer details such as deception, suspicion, etc. However, the details of our streams of consciousness, our decision making, conscience, etc. will remain hidden from direct observation for many years to come. I won't say never, but the challenge of reading our minds is so difficult, there is no clear path for decipherment of external phenomena. Among higher order animals, I believe humans are the only genus that can deliberate and decide what to think about next. e.g., counting sheep to promote sleep. - CWchewybrian wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 10:21 am p.s. We know the locations of brain activities that correlate with certain types of thoughts or feelings, but we don't have a hard location for the experience itself.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
I agree about compatibilism!chewybrian wrote: ↑October 15th, 2021, 10:19 amI don't see how it could be otherwise, unless I attribute decision making capacities to raindrops or sewing machines. If all material things are bound by cause and effect, and I am material, then what else could I think? I can admit that I am material and give up thinking that I could affect outcomes in the world by making *real* choices, or I could accept my will for what it appears to be and conclude that I must be something else. Obviously I choose the latter. I've never even seen in theory how compatibilism is supposed to work. Every attempt at explaining it seems hollow and silly to me, and ignores the elephant(s) in the room.
As to raindrops and sewing machines, these have fewer possibilities than you, a human being.You are more free than raindrops and sewing machines because you have choices and know you have choices and know what your options are. Like raindrops and sewing machines you are not absolutely free but you are relatively free. You are literate, and that fact confers an extra freedom of choice for you that illiterate men and sewing machines lack. You have insight into your own emotional reactions and that fact too confers a freedom that some men lack.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Ontology of Being
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Since ontology is about what exists, the title "Ontology of Being" really just means "Ontology of what ontology studies". It should probably have just been titled "My Ontology".The existence of being. This sounds like a reach to me.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology of Being
Good question. I'm curious to know the answer too.Why is it necessary even to have so many classes of ontology?
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