Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No more rabbit holes. I refuse to read any more of your absurd drivel.

Listen Mr.FACSIMILE man. One more time. You are misconstruing Feser. He is not saying the actual effect of the house yet to be constructed exists before the builder builds the house. Only the thought of it does.

He is really saying the idea of both the beginning and the end of the house's construction..... as an idea .....comes before it's actual construction..... at both the beginning and end of the entire project.

So what?
Fido drop your bone.

"So what",you ask? So Everything! No idea in intellect, no house in the physical world.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

AGAIN Feser:
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.

He says "goal-directedness is associated with consciousness." Goals are motivations that put human into action. One can plan a road trip thinking of the ones aunt's house as the destination. Or thinking of a burger at McDonalds.

The builder can plan a house thinking at first of building the house i.e. construction techniques or ventillation before he settles on an overall appearance and design. Architects often first consider the building space of their client, the budget allowed and building codes. All are constraints that must be dealt with before he can visualize or conceive of the final outcome, BEFORE and then consider to number of floors or specific floor plans. Or appearance.

Eh bunky the cause is often thought of first before the final configuration or outcome . In fact, in machine or shop/industrial design that is primarily the beginning of how a project proceeds. Neither you or Feser understand that.

You mean final effect, not final cause. "Final cause" is Aquinas and Aristotle confusing the complex casual chains intertwined in the houses actual construction with an antiquated philosophical system.

The concept of the essence of the house is nonsense and bogus. Tell us what is the difference between the "essence" of one skyscraper and another taken on by by the same architect, same builder and real estate company.

But he is saying the house (effect) does exist AS AN IDEA BEFORE it exists in the physical world. I'm not misconstruing, anything. I kinda understand that the house (effect) did not physically exist in the builder's mind. But the house did really and truly exist in the builder's mind in another form!

But he is not saying the actual effect of the completed house exists in the physical world.

All human ides and concepts of the universe start in the brain/mind. I don't think Feser is denying this but both of you cherry pick and put the wagon final before the horse. Often technological development is a gestalt. Starting points in the project may alternate between the planning the beginning and planning the end. The projected final outcome, and it's projected functionality, an final look, are not separated from he starting components, arrangement of parts, estimated costs, available personal, and nuits and bolts.......

......and are though of as best as possible as a unified project.
Never is the actual device being developed confused with the conception of, visulization, or projected outcome. It takes a lotr more than your oversimplified theory to practically create.

[Greyfox]

I'm not too certain what hcap and boxcar are talking about but let me offer this idea.
The "medium" that is being worked with has degrees of freedom that determine the final product.

There is always an interaction between the creator of a project and what is being created.
When I construct a sentence on paper, it may or not have the same words that I originally intended to put down. Language has many degrees of freedom.
When a potter starts shaping clay the bowl produced may vary considerably from the original idea due to the malleable nature of the medium.
The clay has less degrees of freedom than language.
If I build a kitchen unit out of wood I'll have less degrees of freedom yet. Chances are the kitchen unit will be much closer to the original concept that was drafted though not necessarily identical due to those fewer degrees of freedom.
In a sense, the medium determines limits of creativity even if the mind can imagine more sophisticated outcomes.

I hope to have added to the confusion here.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

He says "goal-directedness is associated with consciousness." Goals are motivations that put human into action. One can plan a road trip thinking of the ones aunt's house as the destination. Or thinking of a burger at McDonalds.

The builder can plan a house thinking at first of building the house i.e. construction techniques or ventillation before he settles on an overall appearance and design. Architects often first consider the building space of their client, the budget allowed and building codes. All are constraints that must be dealt with before he can visualize or conceive of the final outcome, BEFORE and then consider to number of floors or specific floor plans. Or appearance.

Eh bunky the cause is often thought of first before the final configuration or outcome . In fact, in machine or shop/industrial design that is primarily the beginning of how a project proceeds. Neither you or Feser understand that.

You mean final effect, not final cause. "Final cause" is Aquinas and Aristotle confusing the complex casual chains intertwined in the houses actual construction with an antiquated philosophical system.

The concept of the essence of the house is nonsense and bogus. Tell us what is the difference between the "essence" of one skyscraper and another taken on by by the same architect, same builder and real estate company.
But he is not saying the actual effect of the completed house exists in the physical world.

All human ides and concepts of the universe start in the brain/mind. I don't think Feser is denying this but both of you cherry pick and put the wagon final before the horse. Often technological development is a gestalt. Starting points in the project may alternate between the planning the beginning and planning the end. The projected final outcome, and it's projected functionality, an final look, are not separated from he starting components, arrangement of parts, estimated costs, available personal, and nuits and bolts.......

......and are though of as best as possible as a unified project.
Never is the actual device being developed confused with the conception of, visulization, or projected outcome. It takes a lotr more than your oversimplified theory to practically create.

Do you think a house, a light bulb, a skyscraper, a kitchen cabinet or any other artifact would exist if the desired end (effect) didn't exist as an idea in intellect first?

I see classical philosophy is waaaayy beyond your comprehension. ONCE AGAIN: Final Cause in Aristotle's Realism = effect, a/k/a as purpose. Final Cause answers an important WHAT question: What purpose does a thing serve?

Now, I have a second really tough question for you. I want you to sleep on this tonight and see if you can come up with the correct answer by tomorrow sometime, okay?

What do you think Edison's purpose for creating the light bulb was?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

He says "goal-directedness is associated with consciousness." Goals are motivations that put human into action. One can plan a road trip thinking of the ones aunt's house as the destination. Or thinking of a burger at McDonalds.

Goals are much more than mere motivations. In fact, you won't find the term "motivation" in any of its forms in a definition of "goal". But goal is synonymous with intention.

I take it that you disagree with the definition of "goal" that states:
the end toward which effort is directed?

It seems to me that intentionality with respect to achieving a specific end is the primary force that propels physical action. Motives are fine but a genuine motive, in the context of goal or goal-directedness, requires a specific end toward which to direct effort.

If the guy who only can think of Big Macs and is consumed by the thought of them, he'll never make it to his aunt's house.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

He says "goal-directedness is associated with consciousness." Goals are motivations that put human into action. One can plan a road trip thinking of the ones aunt's house as the destination. Or thinking of a burger at McDonalds.

The builder can plan a house thinking at first of building the house i.e. construction techniques or ventillation before he settles on an overall appearance and design. Architects often first consider the building space of their client, the budget allowed and building codes. All are constraints that must be dealt with before he can visualize or conceive of the final outcome, BEFORE and then consider to number of floors or specific floor plans. Or appearance.

Eh bunky the cause is often thought of first before the final configuration or outcome . In fact, in machine or shop/industrial design that is primarily the beginning of how a project proceeds. Neither you or Feser understand that.

You mean final effect, not final cause. "Final cause" is Aquinas and Aristotle confusing the complex casual chains intertwined in the houses actual construction with an antiquated philosophical system.

The concept of the essence of the house is nonsense and bogus. Tell us what is the difference between the "essence" of one skyscraper and another taken on by by the same architect, same builder and real estate company.
But he is not saying the actual effect of the completed house exists in the physical world.

All human ides and concepts of the universe start in the brain/mind. I don't think Feser is denying this but both of you cherry pick and put the wagon final before the horse. Often technological development is a gestalt. Starting points in the project may alternate between the planning the beginning and planning the end. The projected final outcome, and it's projected functionality, an final look, are not separated from he starting components, arrangement of parts, estimated costs, available personal, and nuits and bolts.......

......and are though of as best as possible as a unified project.
Never is the actual device being developed confused with the conception of, visulization, or projected outcome. It takes a lotr more than your oversimplified theory to practically create.

It didn't take very much for my wife and I to come with a design for our new kitchen. Both us clearly had the end product in mind before my wife even made her drawings.

Again...answer this question, which you keep ducking: If my wife's computerized renderings that she submitted to the kitchen designer didn't represent the result, outcome, end, effect that we had in mind for a remodeled kitchen, of what value were they? What purpose do they serve, if not any of these things?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Do you think a house, a light bulb, a skyscraper, a kitchen cabinet or any other artifact would exist if the desired end (effect) didn't exist as an idea in intellect first?

I see classical philosophy is waaaayy beyond your comprehension. ONCE AGAIN: Final Cause in Aristotle's Realism = effect, a/k/a as purpose. Final Cause answers an important WHAT question: What purpose does a thing serve?

Now, I have a second really tough question for you. I want you to sleep on this tonight and see if you can come up with the correct answer by tomorrow sometime, okay?

What do you think Edison's purpose for creating the light bulb was?

You and Feser assign a future outcome that at a projects beginning is very incomplete. The blanks only get fiiled in as the project progresses from the present to it's future completion. You and are doing frantic polemic somersaults redefining future effects that are more simply and more easily understood as future goals

A goal may be general in nature. An effect is always specific to the cause or mix of causes that specifically produce it.

Let's take the break shot in a pool game. The players's goal is to hopefully cause a number of balls to fall in any of the pockets. Only a super-style-hustler to the nth-degree-on-steroids-Minnesota Fats,..... could even dream of calling the specific effect of his shot, with the foreknowledge of where each of the balls would fall. After the break is one thing before the break there is only a goal and luck.

Our Architect or builder or machine designer especially dealing with many unknowns is in a similar position. Of course past understanding of instances observed with the knowledge of the inherent relationship of a cause with it's specific effect learned, gives humans a leg up. Not too many experienced architects bother conceiving effect preceding their causes. A useless endeavor in designing as new viable practical structures

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I'm not too certain what hcap and boxcar are talking about but let me offer this idea.
The "medium" that is being worked with has degrees of freedom that determine the final product.

There is always an interaction between the creator of a project and what is being created.
When I construct a sentence on paper, it may or not have the same words that I originally intended to put down. Language has many degrees of freedom.
When a potter starts shaping clay the bowl produced may vary considerably from the original idea due to the malleable nature of the medium.
The clay has less degrees of freedom than language.
If I build a kitchen unit out of wood I'll have less degrees of freedom yet. Chances are the kitchen unit will be much closer to the original concept that was drafted though not necessarily identical due to those fewer degrees of freedom.
In a sense, the medium determines limits of creativity even if the mind can imagine more sophisticated outcomes.

I hope to have added to the confusion here.

But "mediums" don't alter the fact that all artifacts' effects (ends, results, outcomes, purposes) were coherently conceived in intellect before the effects existed in the physical world. Causes in intellect are never conceived before the effect is. (How would anyone coherently conceive of a cause for an unknown effect!?) If an idea or concept seems plausible, reasonable and rational, then the research, experiments, testing, etc. begin for sufficient physical causes to bring about the desired effect in mind.

For example, recently I came up with the idea for a new way to mow lawns. My idea would provide several practical benefits -- these benefits essentially being the desired effect. My idea is relatively simple and probably very doable. My lawn mower would be a remote-controlled, battery-driven lawn cutting tool.

Feasible? Why not? Remote control technology has been around a long time, as has improved battery technology. One could mow his lawn from his favorite lawn lounge chair by operating the remote and wearing vision goggles.

Electric motors are quiet and virtually maintenance-free compared to gasoline engines.

No more messy oil changes.

Cheaper to operate. The only regular costs involved is the cost of electricity to recharge the battery. No more expensive gasoline to buy or to store. In fact, for persnickety folks like myself, the savings would be even larger since I use the more pricey e-free gas, since ethanol gas is not good for small engines.

And operating costs would be huge for the lazy, sit-down mowers on their big gas guzzlers.

The machine would have less of a storage footprint. Easier to store, since no long handles would be required.

The machine would be very attractive to Enviro Whackos. What whacko would not want to save his planet from horrible gasoline fumes emission and reduce noise pollution simultaneously? Could probably make a fortune marketing the machine in Kalifornia alone.

All of these benefits/features would be the effect I envision for such a contraption. That effect (end product) is already in my intellect. If I wanted to find someone to invent the thing, then we'd worry about production costs, technical details to get the machine to work, safety features, etc.

This is the way human artifacts are invented or even improved upon. Effects first coherently conceived in intellect give rise to search for causes to subsequently bring those effects into the physical realm.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

When you say "imaginary" tool, you understand that you just said that this "idea" existed only in an imagination, lacking factual reality? In other words, one can only imagine a dining room table or a coffee table or whatever-- that these things are never born out of rational, coherent ideas because they don't serve any particular practical end -- they're just fictitious things purely the product of imagination?

Do you think there's any difference between imagination and an idea coherently conceived in intellect? Or are they one and the same in your mind? And if different, can you give us an example of both? And if different, what is the distinction between the two?

Also,why can't a table be an effect if an intellect coherently conceived a specific end or purpose for that table?

I'm not going to dodge this. I hardly had a minute this weekend and I'm booked tomorrow. I'll get to it as long as it is still timely.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You and Feser assign a future outcome that at a projects beginning is very incomplete. The blanks only get fiiled in as the project progresses from the present to it's future completion. You and are doing frantic polemic somersaults redefining future effects that are more simply and more easily understood as future goals

A goal may be general in nature. An effect is always specific to the cause or mix of causes that specifically produce it.

Let's take the break shot in a pool game. The players's goal is to hopefully cause a number of balls to fall in any of the pockets. Only a super-style-hustler to the nth-degree-on-steroids-Minnesota Fats,..... could even dream of calling the specific effect of his shot, with the foreknowledge of where each of the balls would fall. After the break is one thing before the break there is only a goal and luck.

Our Architect or builder or machine designer especially dealing with many unknowns is in a similar position. Of course past understanding of instances observed with the knowledge of the inherent relationship of a cause with it's specific effect learned, gives humans a leg up. Not too many experienced architects bother conceiving effect preceding their causes. A useless endeavor in designing as new viable practical structures

Of course, it's incomplete. But that doesn't change anything! When someone comes up with an intelligent and coherently conceived idea for a specific end product (EFFECT), that effect held in intellect compels a search for sufficient physical causes to implement the effect in this physical world.

Causes in intellect never precede effects in intellect, since one would not know the purpose behind the cause in the first place. The cause would be looking for a reason to exist.

[hcap]

What do you think Edison's purpose for creating the light bulb was?

Monetary gain did play a large part
Btw, as he remarked. "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

I do not think he conceived of an anywhere near a complete "effect" other than an incandescent lamp to "conceive" as the first step ala Feser.



In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp.

https://www.quora.com/What-inspired-...-the-lightbulb

...Thomas Edison did not invent the incandescent light bulb. Twenty three different light bulbs were developed before Edison's. The principle was to pass an electric current through a filament powerful enough to cause it to glow without combusting. Among the pre-Edison pioneers of electric lighting, Sir Humphrey Davy created the first electric arc lamp in 1809. Warren De la Rue designed the first incandescent light in 1820. La Rue's design depended on a platinum filament, far too expensive for any practical application. Over half a century of experimentation focused primarily on finding an inexpensive filament that could produce electric light for any useful length of time.

Probably the breakthrough came as Edison was able to finally produce over 13 continuous hours of light with the cotton thread filament, and filed his first light bulb patent on January 27, 1880.

Later, he and his researchers found that the ideal filament substance was carbonized bamboo, which produced over 1,200 hours of continuous light. Edison was able to spend so much time on this invention because, thanks to his researchers and his reputation as a successful inventor, he had the support of some leading financiers of the day. J.P. Morgan and the Vanderbilts established the Edison Light Company and advanced Edison $30,000 for research and development.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, it's incomplete. But that doesn't change anything! When someone comes up with an intelligent and coherently conceived idea for a specific end product (EFFECT), that effect held in intellect compels a search for sufficient physical causes to implement the effect in this physical world.

Causes in intellect never precede effects in intellect, since one would not know the purpose behind the cause in the first place. The cause would be looking for a reason to exist.

Goals do. Read about Edison's monetary goals, and the goals/purpose of his investors.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Monetary gain did play a large part

That was all? Money? Money was the desired effect of the bulb, or was money a major motivating factor in getting the creative juices flowing to come up the idea?

When you turn on a light switch, what practical purpose does that serve, other than to enchance your utility company's bottom line?

I do not think he conceived of an anywhere near a complete "effect" other than an incandescent lamp to "conceive" as the first step ala Feser.

And this incandescent lamp was designed to do what, specifically? What was the purpose of the lamp?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Goals do. Read about Edison's monetary goals, and the goals/purpose of his investors.

But goals aren't causes. Nor are investors the inventors or creators.

[hcap]

GOALS=PURPOSE
PURPOSE=MOTIVATION
MOTIVATION=CAUSE

EFFECT COMES AFTER ALL OF THE ABOVE

INSERT INVESTORS AND THEIR MONEY ANYWHERE