A series of thoughts I had from last class: Is there such a thing as earth (a whole - composition of things), or just the components that make it appear whole? Is any true form a composite of things? As in sun-ness. As in, there would be no such thing (form) as sun-ness, but only round-ness, hot-ness, bright-ness, etc. But to know the sun, the form of sun-ness must develop, which we (humans) create. But was the possibility of the creation of sun-ness (innate) in nature? (remember Keane's example of the possible form of boat being within nature in the form of log, though the log, being a composite of things would also not be a true form in this example) Does sun-ness exist only for humans? Can the sun exist without sun-ness? We only create sun-ness to know it
(?) Or was there a blueprint in nature to create sun-ness (the composition of other forms is part of the blueprint)? If there wasn't a blueprint, it was a mere matter of chance it (the sun in our solar system) came about. If this is true, the same can be said about humanity (the sun is required for our existence). (I know, I am starting to talk about design, which most of you, if not all, dispell). Something coming to be by chance, I will refer to as coming to be by mistake. Do mistakes stop happening when we willfully create forms of things (bringing together a composition of other forms, as in refrigerator)? Or are all of these possibilities already in nature (the possibility of refrigerator)? If so, why are these possibilities in nature? (by mistake?) Why do humans have the ability to stop everything that manifests (new manifestations, refrigerators) from being a mistake? Is it a mistake that we have this ability? If the potential for us to stop the manifestation of mistakes exists (sun was mistake, frige was not), it existed in nature (even if it was a mistake). It existed before us. It could have happened before us. But it didn't. Why? The universe always held the possibility of creating new forms, but needed the proper medium to come up, by mistake, to do so? If this medium is a mistake, it may never have developed. Why then have the possibility of new forms, without a sure medium to make them manifest? These possibilities could also be mistakes, but at least the possibility of stopping mistakes (frige) existed before us within nature, and any possibility existing before the medium it needs to come to fruition must exist on some plane absent of the medium.
I think more can be fleshed out from this, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I strongly believe that any given entity is something more, or maybe just different from its parts.
I also think that the sun, as a person knows it, is something that that which our concept presumedly interprets cannot possibly be. This is not to suggest that the two are different, since, in lieu of a concept, one cannot compare that-which-our-concept-interprets to the concept.
I don't think its possible to say whether intention exists on a non-emergent basis. However, I find your discussion of potential intention fascinating. It reminds me of structuralist theories of language that assert that meaning derives from the opposition between signs that constitute a given language. I am tempted to suggest that the outcome of such a discussion boils down to a gestalt shift, by which I mean to say that the theory of the ontological status of something like potentiality may be one out of a number of potentially valid interpretations, any one of which one might find useful or obstructive depending on one's intentions. I do want to make clear that I do not believe that a given set of intentions makes any interpretation any more valid than the other valid interpretations, nor do I think that any interpretation is as valid as any other. I do not espouse relativism, but neither am I sold on the idea of one truth.
Sun-ness surely precedes human cognition of the concept of sun, and though the sun may participate in many forms, as Nick says it is likely to be more than the sun of its parts, so to speak.
Interesting question: do ALL composite things have emergent properties? Sodium and chloride combine to make table salt -- obviously with emergent (since very different) qualities. But what of a mere mixture or amalgam (say iron filings and sulphur powder, which you could easily separate with a magnet)?
My best guess is that it depends on whether the individual substances or parts are bonded together (mechanical reaction as in the case of amalgam, or alloy) or fused together (chemical reaction), as in the case of Nuclear or Cell fusion. When a different and inseparable (although I think some may be separable) substance or thing emerges from two distinct properties, the new element exists only in its current form, in other words it cannot be reduced (or is more difficult to reduce) as I think is the case of Human conception. (Far enough along in development.) Amalgams or mixtures retain some or all of their respective individual properties and may be separated by melting- or in the case of salt water, evaporation, or in the case of “iron filings” magnetization. I do not think all composite things are emergent by nature. Such things as cloth and fibers are a combination of woven composite materials. And if we consider a car to be a composite thing, then it is clear that human intent was a factor in its construction.
Post a Comment