Religion III

[boxcar]

Hey, Wanna-be stand-on-your-head, get-everything-backwards and-upside-down comic, here's a newsflash for you, the Future is not caused by the Present or the Past. The Future is only potential Time. There is no guarantee that Tomorrow will ever arrive -- or even the next hour, for that matter. The only point in Time that is real is the here and now.

You heard it here first, Mr. Upside Down.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Wanna-be stand-on-your-head, get-everything-backwards and-upside-down comic, here's a newsflash for you, the Future is not caused by the Present or the Past. The Future is only potential Time. There is no guarantee that Tomorrow will ever arrive -- or even the next hour, for that matter. The only point in Time that is real is the here and now.

You heard it here first, Mr. Upside Down.

You define the present in a colloquial way, like present-day technology. But think of it this way. Think of the smallest slice of time that you can imagine and think about how quickly that slice of time moved from the future to the present to the past. That is what time is about. It's a continuum.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You define the present in a colloquial way, like present-day technology. But think of it this way. Think of the smallest slice of time that you can imagine and think about how quickly that slice of time moved from the future to the present to the past. That is what time is about. It's a continuum.

Time is a great mystery. It is a continuum....until it isn't! As stated yesterday, the Future does _not_ exist. The Future only has potential existence. In fact, neither the Future or Past are real. Only _now_ is real. For example, we only know one hour from now is real if it should arrive to NOW.

[boxcar]

Just a little heads up to everyone: I claimed that effects exist in intellect or mind long before they do in the physical world, and I credited this bit of knowledge from Dr. Edward Feser's book: "The Last Superstition". I am glad to report that I found the excerpt in his book that addresses this very issue. Hopefully, tomorrow I'll get chance to quote Feser within some meaningful context to help everyone understand what the good doctor is saying.

[boxcar]

It's difficult to ascertain the best starting point in this tough chapter since one thought leads into another and that thought to another, and so on. But in this one section Feser is making a distinction between Aquinas' famous Fifth Way and all other works which pursue the evidence for God's existence in other less convincing ways. So, let's jump in. This is a heavy chapter that covers some lofty and challenging topics such as the distinctions between existence and essence, between eminently and formally caused series, between imagination and coherent conception of ideas in intellect, etc.

The universe is filled with natural regularities; this is uncontroversial. These include the regularities manifested in the biological realm - the way the heart pumps blood, thus keeping an organism alive, or the way a species is so adapted to its environment that its members reliably find sources of food, reproduce themselves, and so forth - but Aquinas is not especially interested in these over any others. Indeed, unlike Paley and "Intelligent Design" proponents, he is not, for the purpose of the Fifth Way, particularly interested in complexity per se at all. The regularity with which the moon orbits the earth, or the regularity of the way a struck match generates fire -- both very simple examples compared to eyes, hearts, species and the like -- are no less important. Indeed, they are more important for his argument. For life is a fairly rare phenomenon, confined so far as we know only to the earth. But the far simpler causal regularities I have been speaking of are completely general and pervade the physical universe, which can be thought of as a vast system of material elements interacting according to regular patterns of cause and effect.

But there is no way to make sense of these regularities apart from the notion of final causation, of things being directed toward and end or goal. For it is not just the case that a struck match regularly generates fire, heat and the like; it regularly generates fire and heat specifically, rather than ice, or the smell of lilacs, or the sound of a trumpet. It is not just the case that the moon regularly orbits the earth in a regular pattern; it orbits the earth specifically, rather than quickly swinging out to Mars and back now and again, or stopping dead for five minutes here and there, or dipping down toward the earth occasionally and then quickly popping back up. And so on for all the innumerable regularities that fill the universe at any given moment. In each case, the causes don't simply happen to result in certain effects, but are evidently and inherently directed toward certain, specific effects as a "goal". As we saw when we first looked at Aristotle's notion of final causality, this doesn't mean that they are consciously trying to reach these goals; of course they are not. The Aristotelian idea is precisely that goal-directedness can and does exist in the natural world even apart from conscious awareness (emphases author's)

Still, this is very odd that this should be the case. One of the raps against final causation is that is seems to entail that thing can produce an effect even before that thing exists. (emphasis mine). Hence to say that an oak tree is the final cause of an acorn seems to entail that the oak tree
- which doesn't yet exist - in some sense causes the acorn to go through every state it passes through as it grows into an oak, since the oak is the "goal" or natural end of the acorn. But how can this be? Well, consider those cases where goal-directedness is associated with consciousness, viz. in us. A builder builds a house; he is a cause that generates a specific kind of effect. But the reason he is able to do this is that the effect, the house, exists as an idea in his intellect before it exists in reality. That is precisely how the not-yet existent house can serve as a final cause - by means of its form or essence existing in someone's intellect , if not (yet) in reality. And that seems clearly to be the only way something not yet existent in reality can exist in any other sense at all, and thus have any effects at all; that is, if it exists in intellect.

Now go back to the vast system of causes that constitute the universe. Every one of them is directed toward a certain end or final cause . Yet, almost none of them is associated with any consciousness, thought or intellect at all; and even animals and human beings, who are conscious, are themselves comprised in whole or in part of unconscious and unintelligent material components which themselves manifest final causality. Yet, it is impossible for anything to be directed toward and end unless the end exists in an intellect which directs the thing in question toward it. And it follows, therefore, that the system of ends or final causes that make up the physical universe can only exist at all because there is a Supreme Intelligence or intellect outside that universe which directs things toward their ends. (pp 114-116, emphasis mine)

At the end of the day, Aquinas exhibited exquisite and impeccable logic because "his" logic found its ground in scripture. All truth, truly, is God's truth!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's difficult to ascertain the best starting point in this tough chapter since one thought leads into another and that thought to another, and so on. But in this one section Feser is making a distinction between Aquinas' famous Fifth Way and all other works which pursue the evidence for God's existence in other less convincing ways. So, let's jump in. This is a heavy chapter that covers some lofty and challenging topics such as the distinctions between existence and essence, between eminently and formally caused series, between imagination and coherent conception of ideas in intellect, etc.

The universe is filled with natural regularities; this is uncontroversial. These include the regularities manifested in the biological realm - the way the heart pumps blood, thus keeping an organism alive, or the way a species is so adapted to its environment that its members reliably find sources of food, reproduce themselves, and so forth - but Aquinas is not especially interested in these over any others. Indeed, unlike Paley and "Intelligent Design" proponents, he is not, for the purpose of the Fifth Way, particularly interested in complexity per se at all. The regularity with which the moon orbits the earth, or the regularity of the way a struck match generates fire -- both very simple examples compared to eyes, hearts, species and the like -- are no less important. Indeed, they are more important for his argument. For life is a fairly rare phenomenon, confined so far as we know only to the earth. But the far simpler causal regularities I have been speaking of are completely general and pervade the physical universe, which can be thought of as a vast system of material elements interacting according to regular patterns of cause and effect.

But there is no way to make sense of these regularities apart from the notion of final causation, of things being directed toward and end or goal. For it is not just the case that a struck match regularly generates fire, heat and the like; it regularly generates fire and heat specifically, rather than ice, or the smell of lilacs, or the sound of a trumpet. It is not just the case that the moon regularly orbits the earth in a regular pattern; it orbits the earth specifically, rather than quickly swinging out to Mars and back now and again, or stopping dead for five minutes here and there, or dipping down toward the earth occasionally and then quickly popping back up. And so on for all the innumerable regularities that fill the universe at any given moment. In each case, the causes don't simply happen to result in certain effects, but are evidently and inherently directed toward certain, specific effects as a "goal". As we saw when we first looked at Aristotle's notion of final causality, this doesn't mean that they are consciously trying to reach these goals; of course they are not. The Aristotelian idea is precisely that goal-directedness can and does exist in the natural world even apart from conscious awareness (emphases author's)

Still, this is very odd that this should be the case. One of the raps against final causation is that is seems to entail that thing can produce an effect even before that thing exists. (emphasis mine). Hence to say that an oak tree is the final cause of an acorn seems to entail that the oak tree
- which doesn't yet exist - in some sense causes the acorn to go through every state it passes through as it grows into an oak, since the oak is the "goal" or natural end of the acorn. But how can this be? Well, consider those cases where goal-directedness is associated with consciousness, viz. in us. A builder builds a house; he is a cause that generates a specific kind of effect. But the reason he is able to do this is that the effect, the house, exists as an idea in his intellect before it exists in reality. That is precisely how the not-yet existent house can serve as a final cause - by means of its form or essence existing in someone's intellect , if not (yet) in reality. And that seems clearly to be the only way something not yet existent in reality can exist in any other sense at all, and thus have any effects at all; that is, if it exists in intellect.

Now go back to the vast system of causes that constitute the universe. Every one of them is directed toward a certain end or final cause . Yet, almost none of them is associated with any consciousness, thought or intellect at all; and even animals and human beings, who are conscious, are themselves comprised in whole or in part of unconscious and unintelligent material components which themselves manifest final causality. Yet, it is impossible for anything to be directed toward and end unless the end exists in an intellect which directs the thing in question toward it. And it follows, therefore, that the system of ends or final causes that make up the physical universe can only exist at all because there is a Supreme Intelligence or intellect outside that universe which directs things toward their ends. (pp 114-116, emphasis mine)

At the end of the day, Aquinas exhibited exquisite and impeccable logic because "his" logic found its ground in scripture. All truth, truly, is God's truth!

What was it that caused the builder to have a particular thought about building the house? I think the cause and effect theory as your author applies it to a builder fits like a pair of baggy pants without a belt. A match causes a piece of paper to burn. But imagining a match causing a piece of paper to burn, and then calling that idea in your head cause and effect is ridiculous.

That excerpt is mostly specious.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

What was it that caused the builder to have a particular thought about building the house?

That excerpt is mostly specious.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

The answer to the question.

And it follows, therefore, that the system of ends or final causes that make up the physical universe can only exist at all because there is a Supreme Intelligence or intellect outside that universe which directs things toward their ends.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

What was it that caused the builder to have a particular thought about building the house? I think the cause and effect theory as your author applies it to a builder fits like a pair of baggy pants without a belt. A match causes a piece of paper to burn. But imagining a match causing a piece of paper to burn, and then calling that idea in your head cause and effect is ridiculous.

That excerpt is mostly specious.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

"What was it that caused the builder to have a particular thought about building the house?"


Of course. No one is denying causal chains, but Aquinas proposed two types: Whoever/Whatever caused the thought of the builder to construct a house (his employer, e.g.,) in the now extended causal chain, becomes the principal cause. The builder is now an instrumental cause. So is the material further down the chain. The material cannot manifest itself into a house- does not have intrinsic causal power, and so is a "per accidens"- an instrumental cause- that requires a cause extrinsic to itself. These types of causal chains must terminate in a final cause to make change intelligible.

If the builder desires a summer beach house, he has inherent causal power to bring it about- a "per se" causal series that can terminate in him- his decision, his manpower. These types of causal chains in theory could have an infinite regress.

The match is a human artifact, which required a mental cause to realize its existence, and if I read correctly, was only mentioned to evidence the idea that the world is teeming with causes that produce specific effects, i.e., goal-directness.

If the above is irrelevant due to the fact that you were delving into determinism (thought processes, mind, brain, etc.), I briefly discussed that with a now-banned individual, but could do so again. (But first, Blues vs. Sharks!)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

What was it that caused the builder to have a particular thought about building the house? I think the cause and effect theory as your author applies it to a builder fits like a pair of baggy pants without a belt. A match causes a piece of paper to burn. But imagining a match causing a piece of paper to burn, and then calling that idea in your head cause and effect is ridiculous.

That excerpt is mostly specious.

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

"What caused the builder to have a particular thought" isn't the issue. The issue is that a specific effect existed in his mind before it did in the physical world. Ditto with the invention of the match, the light bulb, the toaster, the TVs, etc.,etc. This isn't to deny that any number of things could have played a role in influencing the builder to initially entertain the idea -- but it was the invisible idea in immaterial mind that caused the house to eventually get constructed and exist in this physical world.

It is no accident that scripture says of God that "what is seen was not made out of things which are visible" (Heb 11:3). Of course, this is primarily referring to creation ex nihilo. But in another sense it can be understood on a deeper level to refer to how things are created by God's image bearers (i.e. human beings). Ideas are unknown and invisible to all, to all but the one who is the source of the idea, that is. In this sense, then, ideas are not only pictures or images held in intellect but are coherent conceptions of ends, goals or purposes. Things are "created" in intellect before they are in this physical world. As rational image bearers of God, finite man has the finite ability to copy what our infinite Image Maker does. Just as the eternal, invisible God existed prior to any physical matter, likewise man's invisible ideas exist prior to the existence of physical effects.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"What was it that caused the builder to have a particular thought about building the house?"


Of course. No one is denying causal chains, but Aquinas proposed two types: Whoever/Whatever caused the thought of the builder to construct a house (his employer, e.g.,) in the now extended causal chain, becomes the principal cause. The builder is now an instrumental cause. So is the material further down the chain. The material cannot manifest itself into a house- does not have intrinsic causal power, and so is a "per accidens"- an instrumental cause- that requires a cause extrinsic to itself. These types of causal chains must terminate in a final cause to make change intelligible.

If the builder desires a summer beach house, he has inherent causal power to bring it about- a "per se" causal series that can terminate in him- his decision, his manpower. These types of causal chains in theory could have an infinite regress.

The match is a human artifact, which required a mental cause to realize its existence, and if I read correctly, was only mentioned to evidence the idea that the world is teeming with causes that produce specific effects, i.e., goal-directness.

If the above is irrelevant due to the fact that you were delving into determinism (thought processes, mind, brain, etc.), I briefly discussed that with a now-banned individual, but could do so again. (But first, Blues vs. Sharks!)

When the crops get watered they grow. It's not more complicated than that. I'll stay with the conclusion that thought is not cause or effect. When a nail is hammered, a crop is watered, a roof is shingled - at that point we have cause. I simply don't buy thought as cause. Stimulus, dreaming - those are not cause. Once you stop thinking about typing and start typing, you have cause.

As Randy Newman sang in the Monk theme song, "I could be wrong now; but I don't think so."

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"What caused the builder to have a particular thought" isn't the issue. The issue is that a specific effect existed in his mind before it did in the physical world. Ditto with the invention of the match, the light bulb, the toaster, the TVs, etc.,etc. This isn't to deny that any number of things could have played a role in influencing the builder to initially entertain the idea -- but it was the invisible idea in immaterial mind that caused the house to eventually get constructed and exist in this physical world.

It is no accident that scripture says of God that "what is seen was not made out of things which are visible" (Heb 11:3). Of course, this is primarily referring to creation ex nihilo. But in another sense it can be understood on a deeper level to refer to how things are created by God's image bearers (i.e. human beings). Ideas are unknown and invisible to all, to all but the one who is the source of the idea, that is. In this sense, then, ideas are not only pictures or images held in intellect but are coherent conceptions of ends, goals or purposes. Things are "created" in intellect before they are in this physical world. As rational image bearers of God, finite man has the finite ability to copy what our infinite Image Maker does. Just as the eternal, invisible God existed prior to any physical matter, likewise man's invisible ideas exist prior to the existence of physical effects.

See answer above. Thinking about being rich don't buy the Rolls.

[hcap]

I'm glad othedrs have decided to comment on this topic. However the background of the debate up until now primarily between boxcar and myself, was his contention that time runs in reverse to what we all agree on.

After pages and pages of debate, I reiterated one om my initial points of evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_..._arrow_of_time
Causal arrow of time

A cause precedes its effect: the causal event occurs before the event it affects. Birth, for example, follows a successful conception and not vice versa. Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow.

So I used this "arrow", one of eight, to support the forward direction of time. Box, after tons of contentionl finally posed a bet coming down to "since mentally we can "envision effect before cause", the Causal arrow of time must run in reverse within our intellect.

I have posted pages illustrating how this contrarian use of the terms cause and effect.... is non specific to the proper use of cause and effect as normally used. And consequently a poor indicator of the direction of time.

Solving for a goal or aim, is used throughout the world and particularity the commercial world, which never ever would consider envisioning, imagining, or mentally holding the thought of cause and effect as anything more than a goal, realizing that is a far cry from,..... and not enough to practically create or produce, a physical reality....

The underlying assumption here is a confusion of the thought of something for the something itself. Not that the intellect does not have it's place in understanding possible future events. As I tried to convey, the blueprint of a house or skyscraper is not a the effect of the actual built and completed structure.

The blueprint is necessary to envision and create first but it is not the effect. If it were, trillions and trillions of dollars would be saved living in boxcar's blueprints

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

See answer above. Thinking about being rich don't buy the Rolls.

Since all rational thought is "aim-oriented" (to borrow Wiki's term) then it is logical and understandable how potentiality exists in intellect before it does in the physical world. It is the mind that MOVES us to act! The potentiality to build a certain kind of house, to invent an electrical device that would illuminate spaces, to create a thing that can produce fire when struck, etc. all exist in the metaphysical reality of mind before it does in the physical realm.

What occurs when the mind moves us to act is that a change takes place (which is what "move" or "motion" mean in Aristotle's Realism.) The coherent idea conceived in intellect undergoes a transformation from the potentiality of an invisible idea in immaterial mind to ultimately the actual physical effect which was originally conceived in intellect.

I was hoping that there would be a little more bottom to you than the shallow depth to Hcap's thinking, but what you wrote above is not an encouraging sign. There are two ways we can think: We can merely imagine things and then we can coherently conceive of ways to accomplish our ends, goals or purposes. We can sit and daydream all day long and imagine what it would be like to be rich, or we can conceive of a rational and coherent plan on how to acquire that Rolls -- how to fulfill that end. The difference between the two modes of thought is like day and night.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I'm glad othedrs have decided to comment on this topic. However the background of the debate up until now primarily between boxcar and myself, was his contention that time runs in reverse to what we all agree on.

After pages and pages of debate, I reiterated one om my initial points of evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_..._arrow_of_time
Causal arrow of time

A cause precedes its effect: the causal event occurs before the event it affects. Birth, for example, follows a successful conception and not vice versa. Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow.

So I used this "arrow", one of eight, to support the forward direction of time. Box, after tons of contentionl finally posed a bet coming down to "since mentally we can "envision effect before cause", the Causal arrow of time must run in reverse within our intellect.

I have posted pages illustrating how this contrarian use of the terms cause and effect.... is non specific to the proper use of cause and effect as normally used. And consequently a poor indicator of the direction of time.

Solving for a goal or aim, is used throughout the world and particularity the commercial world, which never ever would consider envisioning, imagining, or mentally holding the thought of cause and effect as anything more than a goal, realizing that is a far cry from,..... and not enough to practically create or produce, a physical reality....

The underlying assumption here is a confusion of the thought of something for the something itself. Not that the intellect does not have it's place in understanding possible future events. As I tried to convey, the blueprint of a house or skyscraper is not a the effect of the actual built and completed structure.

The blueprint is necessary to envision and create first but it is not the effect. If it were, trillions and trillions of dollars would be saved living in boxcar's blueprints

Maybe someone will ask our Forked-Tongued Engineer Extraordinaire this question regarding the last paragraph of his post: If this NECESSARY blueprint does not contain the technical expressions of the architect's desired outcome, result, end, end product, goal or effect for which the architect is aiming, then WHAT specific, practical purpose does this "necessary" blueprint serve in absence of these reasons?

In my post 684, I laid out the four logically implied WHAT questions behind the Four Causes. For the Final Cause, we asked this question: For what specific purpose or intention was a thing caused or made in the first place? This question applies with equal force (if indeed not more so!) to final causes coherently conceived in intellect.

To clearly see the inherent contradiction in Hcap's last paragraph, all one needs to do is ask: "The blueprint is necessary to envision and create WHAT, specifically?" If the blueprint's purpose isn't in any of the reasons above, then what makes the blueprint necessary?

Out of one side of his mouth, Hcap tells us that the blueprint is "necessary", while out of the other side of his mouth he clearly implies that it's not
necessary since the architect's desired outcome, result, goal, end, end product or EFFECT is not found in the blueprint.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

When the crops get watered they grow. It's not more complicated than that. I'll stay with the conclusion that thought is not cause or effect. When a nail is hammered, a crop is watered, a roof is shingled - at that point we have cause. I simply don't buy thought as cause. Stimulus, dreaming - those are not cause. Once you stop thinking about typing and start typing, you have cause.

Why do crops grow when watered?

As Randy Newman sang in the Monk theme song, "I could be wrong now; but I don't think so."

Since your post begs the question throughout, I strongly suspect you're far from being right.