Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Brant,It can do two things I can think of: flourish or become extinct.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 3, 2008 Author Share Posted September 3, 2008 Micheal, the human species does nothing and obeys nothing.Brant,The human species exists. Or is it an illusion? Or maybe all human being simply turn out similar and are able to reproduce only with each other because of a cosmic coincidence?MichaelA species is defined to be a -set- of organisms with a certain genome occurring with a certain gene frequency. In bisexual species any male/female pair are co-fertile, in the sense that a sperm/egg pair from them can co-fertilize, group to be a complete organism (in the fullness of time) which in turn can reproduce. So species are sets of organisms for starters. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Bob,Set by what standard?From the bottom up, that description of yours is good.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Brant,It can do two things I can think of: flourish or become extinct.MichaelNope. You are just describing what happens to its referents, actual organisms. There's nothing wrong with the way you state it if you know it's just a shorthand. I would say it the same way if it read better.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Brant,That's bottom up thinking. That is presuming that a bunch of disconnected referents just happened to share certain characteristics by chance.That happens to be part of the truth, but not the whole truth.I don't see any attack on individualism by admitting I belong to the human race.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Brant,That's bottom up thinking. That is presuming that a bunch of disconnected referents just happened to share certain characteristics by chance.That happens to be part of the truth, but not the whole truth.I don't see any attack on individualism by admitting I belong to the human race.MichaelConcepts don't do anything. Referents subsume everything in the concept. The "disconnected referents" manage to come together into groups and reproduce somehow recognizing each other as having social and sexual commonality. And how does this discusion suddenly involve individualism? Who questions what race you belong to? Michael, you are wearing me out. You can't deal with my argument by bloating up the conversation.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Who questions what race you belong to?Brant,You did. Human race means human species. You essentially said it didn't exist (does nothing).I no of nothing that exists and does nothing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 (edited) Who questions what race you belong to?Brant,You did. Human race means human species. You essentially said it didn't exist (does nothing).I no of nothing that exists and does nothing.MichaelExistence exists. Existence does nothing. Tree exists but does nothing. A tree exists and does something(s). 6 billion people exist all doing things, but not the human species, only the referents (you included). There is no such thing as a concept that does anything at all. --Brant Edited September 4, 2008 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Brant,We disagree on what doing something is.We disagree on whether the human species is an existent, or just a mental abstraction.The entire species is a referent in my view. A fact, not just a concept. It's what separates us from donkeys. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 (edited) Brant,We disagree on what doing something is.We disagree on whether the human species is an existent, or just a mental abstraction.The entire species is a referent in my view. A fact, not just a concept. It's what separates us from donkeys. MichaelSpecies as a referent is a conceptual not a (metaphysical) particular referent. Abstaction of abstraction. Until you get down to the mataphysical particulars nothing is doing anything. In any case, I am sure you exist. No species wrote any of these posts.--Brant Edited September 4, 2008 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 You can even apply this argument to an abstraction like 'tree'. We abstract "objects" and call them 'trees', which is a higher order abstraction. Then we go from 'trees' to 'forest' to 'ecosystem', etc. To the best of our knowledge what "exists" is given to us by physical science, not metaphysics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Mawdsley Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 To the best of our knowledge what "exists" is given to us by physical science, not metaphysics.I have not been keeping up to date with the thread but this statement caught me eye. If I'm speaking out of context, please ignore.The physical sciences tell us what is observed and how things observed behave. It is an attempt to build quantitative mathematical models of the observed nature of the world. It expresses this in the language of universal laws.Metaphysics attempts to tell us what exists, why it exists, and why things behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with observation. It is an attempt to build qualitative logical models of the underlying nature of the world we observe. It expresses this in the language of universal laws.Different processes with different purposes and expressed in a paradoxically similar language; a recipe for confusion. Only the marriage of the two approaches can tell us what exists.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 In any case, I am sure you exist. No species wrote any of these posts.Brant,If the species had not existed before me, I would not have either. Neither would you.No species, no Michael. No Brant.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 4, 2008 Author Share Posted September 4, 2008 To the best of our knowledge what "exists" is given to us by physical science, not metaphysics.I have not been keeping up to date with the thread but this statement caught me eye. If I'm speaking out of context, please ignore.The physical sciences tell us what is observed and how things observed behave. It is an attempt to build quantitative mathematical models of the observed nature of the world. It expresses this in the language of universal laws.Metaphysics attempts to tell us what exists, why it exists, and why things behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with observation. It is an attempt to build qualitative logical models of the underlying nature of the world we observe. It expresses this in the language of universal laws.Different processes with different purposes and expressed in a paradoxically similar language; a recipe for confusion. Only the marriage of the two approaches can tell us what exists.PaulWhat universal laws are there except the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction? Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 I have no idea what a "qualitative logical models" might be, perhaps a holon? I suspect there is quite a bit of "logic" in physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 If the species had not existed before me, I would not have either. Neither would you.it's a chicken and egg thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindy Newton Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 You can even apply this argument to an abstraction like 'tree'. We abstract "objects" and call them 'trees', which is a higher order abstraction. Then we go from 'trees' to 'forest' to 'ecosystem', etc. To the best of our knowledge what "exists" is given to us by physical science, not metaphysics.Just a note: "objects" is a highter abstraction than "trees." Trees, men, dogs, forks, airplanes, etc., etc., are all objects. Perhaps you meant we isolate a similar group of objects and call them, "trees?"--Mindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 If the species had not existed before me, I would not have either. Neither would you.it's a chicken and egg thing. GS,Not in my case. I am 100% sure that if there had not been a human species, I would not exist as a human being.I don't know who the first was, but I am also 100% sure is wasn't me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 In any case, I am sure you exist. No species wrote any of these posts.Brant,If the species had not existed before me, I would not have either. Neither would you.No species, no Michael. No Brant.MichaelTrue. I never said the human species doesn't exist, only that qua species it doesn't do anything--or qua anything else.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 We simply need to be clear about epistemological reality and metaphysical reality and the proper inter-relationship between these two. For instance, God exists, but only as an idea in human minds. The human species exists, but only insofar as people physically exist. Existence exists, but only insofar as the existents of existence exist.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Just a note: "objects" is a highter abstraction than "trees." Trees, men, dogs, forks, airplanes, etc., etc., are all objects. Perhaps you meant we isolate a similar group of objects and call them, "trees?"--MindyWhen I say we abstract "objects" I mean we produce neural images in our brain. We then label (associate) these images with our language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 GS,Not in my case. I am 100% sure that if there had not been a human species, I would not exist as a human being.I don't know who the first was, but I am also 100% sure is wasn't me. MichaelHow can you have just one of a species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 How can you have just one of a species?GS,Please forgive me, but I have wasted too much time on discussion the obvious with Brant.I am getting really bored with all this. I see something that exists. You guys don't from different perspectives.I'm going to let that lay right there.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 How can you have just one of a species?By killing off all but one. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 [by killing off all but one. --BrantGood point, but I was referring to Micheals statement that a species exists before a member of the species. I can't imagine it, it makes no sense to me whatsoever. 'Species' can't have any meaning without representative members. How could we ever define a species without having some member organisms to examine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now