47 ideas
15477 | Ontology is highly abstract physics, containing placeholders and exclusions [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Ontology sets out an even more abstract model of how the world is than theoretical physics, a model that has placeholders for scientific results and excluders for tempting confusions. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: Most modern metaphysicians accept this account. The interesting (mildly!) question is whether physicists will accept it. If the metaphysics is really rooted in physics, a metaphysical physicist is better placed than a metaphysician knowing some physics. |
3123 | Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints [Segal] |
Full Idea: Science is in the business of carving nature at the joints. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5) |
3125 | Psychology studies the way rationality links desires and beliefs to causality [Segal] |
Full Idea: A person's desires and beliefs tend to cause what they tend to rationalise. This coordination of causality and rationalisation lies at the heart of psychology. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5.3) |
15471 | Truth is a relation between a representation ('bearer') and part of the world ('truthmaker') [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Truth is a relation between two things - a representation (the truth 'bearer') and the world or some part of it (the 'truthmaker'). | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 03.1) | |
A reaction: That truth is about representations seems to me to be exactly right. That it is about truthmakers is more controversial. There are well known problems with negative truths, general truths, future truths etc. I'm happy with 'facts'. |
15484 | A property is a combination of a disposition and a quality [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: I take properties to have a dual nature; in virtue of possessing a property, an object possesses both a particular dispositionality and a particular qualitative character. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: That leaves you with the question of the relationship between the disposition and the quality. I say you must choose, and I choose the disposition. Qualities (which are partly subjective, obviously) arise from fundamental dispositions. |
15478 | Properties are the respects in which objects resemble, which places them in classes [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: If objects belong to classes in virtue of resemblances they bear to one another, they resemble one another in virtue of their properties. Objects resemble in some way or respect, and you could think of these ways or respects as 'properties'. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: If you pare the universe down to one object with five distinct properties, they resemble nothing, and fail this definition. Resemblance seems like the epistemology, not the ontology. |
15483 | Properties are ways particular things are, and so they are tied to the identity of their possessor [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: The redness or sphericity of this tomato cannot migrate to another tomato. This is a consequence of the idea that properties are particular ways things are. The identity of a property is bound up with the identity of its possessor. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: This is part of his declaration that he believes in tropes. At the very least, properties can be thought of separately, and have second-order properties that don't seem tied to the particulars. |
15480 | Objects are not bundles of tropes (which are ways things are, not parts of things) [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: The bundle theory for tropes treats properties inappositely as parts of objects. Objects can have parts, but an object's properties are not its parts, they are particular ways the object is. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: The 'way an object is' seems a very vague concept. Most things that get labelled as tropes are actually highly complex. Without mention of causal powers I think these discussions drift in a muddle. |
15489 | A property that cannot interact is worse than inert - it isn't there at all [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: A property that is intrinsically incapable of affecting or being affected by anything else, actual or possible, is not merely a case of inertness - it amounts to a no-thing. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 06.6) | |
A reaction: In the end Martin rejects Shoemaker's purely causal account of properties, but he clearly understands Shoemaker's point well. |
15487 | If unmanifested partnerless dispositions are still real, and are not just qualities, they can explain properties [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Given a realist view of dispositions as fully actual, even without manifestations or partners, a purely dispositional account of properties has a degree of plausibility, which is enhanced because properties lack purely qualitative characterisations. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 06.4) | |
A reaction: In the end Martin opts for a mixed account, as in Idea 15484, but he gives reasons here for the view which I favour. If he concedes that dispositions may exist without manifestation, they must surely lack qualities. Are they not properties, then? |
15479 | Properties endow a ball with qualities, and with powers or dispositions [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Each property endows a ball with a distinctive qualitative character and a distinctive range of powers or dispositionalities. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: I think this is the wrong way round. Do properties support powers, or powers support properties? I favour the latter. Properties are much vaguer than powers. Powers generate the required causation and activity. |
15488 | Qualities and dispositions are aspects of properties - what it exhibits, and what it does [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: For any intrinsic and irreducible property, what is qualitative and what is dispositional are one and the same property considered as what that property exhibits of its nature and what that property is directive and selective for in its manifestation. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 06.6) | |
A reaction: This is supposed to support qualities and dispositions as equal partners, but I don't see how 'what a property exhibits' can have any role in fundamental ontology. What it exhibits may be very misleading about its nature. |
15469 | Dispositions in action can be destroyed, be recovered, or remain unchanged [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Three forms of dispositionality are illustrated by explosives (which are destroyed by manifestation), being soluble (where the dispositions is lost but recoverable), and being stable (where the disposition is unchanged). | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 02.7) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Presumably the explosives could be recovered after the explosion, since the original elements are still there, but it would take a while. The retina remains stable by continually changing. There are no simple distinctions! |
15467 | Powers depend on circumstances, so can't be given a conditional analysis [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Nobody believes, or ought to believe, that manifestations of powers follow upon the single event mentioned in the antecedent of the conditional independently of the circumstances. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 02.4) | |
A reaction: Another way of putting it would be that the behaviour of powers is more ceteris paribus than law. |
15466 | 'The wire is live' can't be analysed as a conditional, because a wire can change its powers [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: According to the conditional analysis of 'the wire is live', if the wire is touched then it gives off electricity. What ultimately defeats this analysis is the acknowledged possibility of objects gaining or losing powers. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 02.3) | |
A reaction: He offers his 'electro-fink' as a counterexample, where touching the wire changes its disposition. The conditional analysis is simple and clearcut, but dispositions in reality are complex and unstable. |
15465 | Structures don't explain dispositions, because they consist of dispositions [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: It is self-defeating to try to explain dispositionality in terms of structural states because structural states are themselves dispositional. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 01.2) | |
A reaction: No doubt structures have dispositions, but are they entirely dispositional? Might there be 'emergent' dispositions which can only be explained by the structure itself, rather than by the dispositions that make up the structure? |
15476 | Structural properties involve dispositionality, so cannot be used to explain it [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: I take it as obvious that any structural property involves dispositionality and, therefore, cannot be used to 'explain' dispositionality. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.3) | |
A reaction: I think this is the right way round. The so-called 'categorical' properties seem to be close in nature to the 'structural' properties. |
15481 | I favour the idea of a substratum for properties; spacetime seems to be just a bearer of properties [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: I favour the old idea of substratum: the haver of properties not itself had as a property. Space-time might itself be the bearer of properties, not itself borne as a property. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: A very nice idea. The choice is between saying either that fundamentals like space-time and physical fields are the propertyless bearers of properties, or that they purely consist of properties (so properties are fundamental, not substrata). |
15474 | Properly understood, wholes do no more causal work than their parts [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: There is no causal work for the whole that is not done by the parts, provided the complex role of the parts is fully appreciated. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.1) | |
A reaction: It seems like a truth that because some parts are doing particular causal work (e.g. glue), the whole can acquire causal powers that the mereological sum of parts lacks. |
15486 | Only abstract things can have specific and full identity specifications [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Abstract entities (as nonspatiotemporal) seem to be the only candidates for specific and full identity specifications. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 05.2 n1) | |
A reaction: Martin says that only the 'mad logician' seeks such specifications elsewhere. Some people like persons to have perfect identity. God is a popular candidate too. Can objects have perfect 'macroscopic' identity? |
15475 | The concept of 'identity' must allow for some changes in properties or parts [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: We must avoid a use of 'identity' that implies that any entity over time must be said to lack continuing identity simply because it has changed properties or has lost, added, or had substituted some parts. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.3) | |
A reaction: This may the key area where the logical-mathematical type of philosophy comes into contact with the natural-metaphysical type. Imagine Martin's concept of 'identity' in mathematics. π changes to 3.1387... during the calculation! |
3105 | Is 'Hesperus = Phosphorus' metaphysically necessary, but not logically or epistemologically necessary? [Segal] |
Full Idea: It is metaphysically necessary that Hesperus is Phosphorus, but not logically necessary, since logical deduction could not reveal its truth, and it is not epistemologically necessary, as the ancient Greeks didn't know the identity. (Natural necessity?) | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.6) |
3106 | If claims of metaphysical necessity are based on conceivability, we should be cautious [Segal] |
Full Idea: Since conceivability is the chief method of assessing the claims of metaphysical necessity, I think such claims are incautious. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.6) |
15472 | It is pointless to say possible worlds are truthmakers, and then deny that possible worlds exist [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: To claim that the truthmaker for a counterfactual, for example, is a set of possible worlds, but to deny that these worlds really exist, seems pointless. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 03.3) | |
A reaction: Lewis therefore argues that they do exist. Martin argues that possible worlds are not truthmakers. He rests his account of modality on dispositions. I prefer Martin. |
3113 | The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth [Segal] |
Full Idea: The success and virtue of an explanation do not guarantee its truth. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) |
15492 | Explanations are mind-dependent, theory-laden, and interest-relative [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Explanations are mind-dependent, theory-laden, and interest-relative. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 10.2) | |
A reaction: I don't think you can rule out the 'real' explanation, as the one dominant causal predecessor, such as the earthquake producing a tsunami. |
15495 | Analogy works, as when we eat food which others seem to be relishing [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: The long-derided way of analogy works! Otherwise why, when someone else is relishing a food we have not tried, is it reasonable for us to try it ourselves? | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 12.2) | |
A reaction: Why wouldn't we rush to eat something an animal was relishing? Nice idea. |
15493 | Memory requires abstraction, as reminders of what cannot be fully remembered [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Selectivity and abstraction are required for the development of memory, because reminders and promptings are rarely replicas of what is being remembered. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 10.3) | |
A reaction: I take the key idea of mental life to be that of a 'label'. This need not be verbal, so 'conceptual label'. It could be an image, as on a road sign. Labelling is the most indispensable aspect of thought. We label objects, parts, properties and groups. |
3112 | Folk psychology is ridiculously dualist in its assumptions [Segal] |
Full Idea: Commonsense psychology is a powerful explanatory theory, and largely correct, but it seems to be profoundly dualist, and treats minds as immaterial spirits which can transmigrate and exist disembodied. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) | |
A reaction: Fans of folk psychology tend to focus on central normal experience, but folk psychology also seems to range from quirky to barking mad. A 'premonition' is a widely accepted mental event. |
3108 | If 'water' has narrow content, it refers to both H2O and XYZ [Segal] |
Full Idea: My view is that the concepts of both the Earth person and the Twin Earth person refer to BOTH forms of diamonds or water (H2O and XYZ). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.7) | |
A reaction: Fair enough, though that seems to imply that my current concepts may actually refer to all sorts of items of which I am currently unaware. But that may be so. |
3110 | Humans are made of H2O, so 'twins' aren't actually feasible [Segal] |
Full Idea: Humans are largely made of H2O, so there could be no twin on Twin Earth, and (as Kuhn noted) nothing with a significantly different structure from H2O could be macroscopically very like water (but topaz and citrine will do). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.1) | |
A reaction: A small point, but one that appeals to essentialists like me (see under Natural Theory/Laws of Nature). We can't learn much metaphysics from impossible examples. |
3124 | Externalists can't assume old words refer to modern natural kinds [Segal] |
Full Idea: The question of what a pre-scientific term extends over is extremely difficult for a Putnam-style externalist to answer. …There seems no good reason to assume that they extend over natural kinds ('whale', 'cat', 'water'). | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5.1) | |
A reaction: The assumption seems to be that they used to extend over descriptions, and now they extend over essences, or expert references. This can't be right. They have never changed, but now contain fewer errors. |
3111 | Externalism can't explain concepts that have no reference [Segal] |
Full Idea: Empty terms and concepts provide the largest problem for the externalist thesis of the world dependence of concepts. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.2) | |
A reaction: A speculative concept could then become a reality (e.g. an invention). The solution seems to be to say that there is an internal and an external component to most concepts. |
3109 | If content is external, so are beliefs and desires [Segal] |
Full Idea: If we accept Putnam's externalist conclusion about the meaning of a word, it is a short step to a similar conclusion about the contents of the twins' beliefs, desires and so on. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 2.1) | |
A reaction: This is the key step which has launched a whole new externalist view of the nature of the mind. It is one thing to say that I don't quite know what my words mean, another that I don't know my own beliefs. |
3104 | Must we relate to some diamonds to understand them? [Segal] |
Full Idea: Is a relationship with diamonds necessary for having a concept of diamonds? | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4) | |
A reaction: Probably not, given that I have a concept of kryptonite, and that I can invent my own concepts. Suppose I was brought up to believe that diamonds are a myth? |
3117 | Concepts can survive a big change in extension [Segal] |
Full Idea: We need to think of concepts as organic entities that can persist through changes of extension. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 3.3) | |
A reaction: This would be 'organic' in the sense of modifying and growing. This is exactly right, and the interesting problem becomes the extreme cases, where an individual stretches a concept a long way. |
3103 | Maybe content involves relations to a language community [Segal] |
Full Idea: It has been argued (e.g. by Tyler Burge) that certain relations to other language users are determinants of content. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 1.4) | |
A reaction: Burge's idea (with Wittgenstein behind him) strikes me as plausible (more plausible than water and elms determining the content). Our concepts actually shift during conversations. |
3116 | Maybe experts fix content, not ordinary users [Segal] |
Full Idea: Putnam and Burge claim that there could be two words that a misinformed subject uses to express different concepts, but that express just one concept of the experts. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 3.2) | |
A reaction: This pushes the concept outside the mind of the user, which leaves an ontological problem of what concepts are made of, how you individuate them, and where they are located. |
3121 | If content is narrow, my perfect twin shares my concepts [Segal] |
Full Idea: To say that contents of my belief are narrow is to say that they are intrinsic to me, hence that any perfect twin of mine would have beliefs with the same contents. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 5) | |
A reaction: I personally find this more congenial than externalism. If my twin and I studied chemistry, we would reach identical conclusions about water, as long as we remained perfect twins. |
3118 | If thoughts ARE causal, we can't explain how they cause things [Segal] |
Full Idea: If we identify a psychological property with its causal role then we lose the obvious explanation of why the event has the causal role that it has. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 4.1) | |
A reaction: This pinpoints very nicely one of the biggest errors in modern philosophy. There are good naturalistic reasons to reduce everything to causal role, but there is a deeper layer. Essences! |
3119 | Even 'mass' cannot be defined in causal terms [Segal] |
Full Idea: We can't define mass in terms of its causal powers because massive objects do different things in different physical systems. …What an object (or concept) with a given property does depends on what it interacts with. | |
From: Gabriel M.A. Segal (A Slim Book about Narrow Content [2000], 4.1) | |
A reaction: This leaves an epistemological problem, that we believe in mass, but can only get at it within a particular gravitational or inertial system. Don't give up on ontology at this point. |
15485 | Instead of a cause followed by an effect, we have dispositions in reciprocal manifestation [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: The two-event cause-and-effect view is easily avoided and replaced by the view of mutual manifestations of reciprocal disposition partners, suggesting a natural contemporaneity. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 05.1) | |
A reaction: This view, which I find much more congenial than the traditional one, is explored in the ideas of Mumford and Anjum. |
15491 | Causation should be explained in terms of dispositions and manifestations [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Disposition and manifestation are the basic categories by means of which cause and effect are to be explained. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 07.8) | |
A reaction: 'Manifestation' sounds a bit subjective. The manifestation evident to us may not indicate what is really going on below the surface. I like his basic picture. |
15468 | Causal counterfactuals are just clumsy linguistic attempts to indicate dispositions [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: 'Causal' counterfactuals have a place, of course, but only as clumsy and inexact linguistic gestures to dispositions, and they should be kept in that place. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 02.6) | |
A reaction: Counterfactuals only seem to give a regularity account of causation, by correlating an effect with a minimal context which will give rise to it. Surely dispositions run deeper than that? |
15470 | Causal laws are summaries of powers [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: Causal laws are summaries of what entities are capable and incapable of. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 02.8) | |
A reaction: That's a pretty good formulation. Personally I favour a Humean analysis, perhaps along Lewis's lines, but on a basis of real powers. This remark of Martin's has got me rethinking. |
15482 | We can't think of space-time as empty and propertyless, and it seems to be a substratum [Martin,CB] |
Full Idea: It makes no sense in ontology or modern physics to think of space-time as empty and propertyless. Space-time nicely fulfils the condition of a substratum. | |
From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6) | |
A reaction: At the very least, space-time seems to be 'curved', so it had better be something. Time has properties like being transitive. Space-time (or fields) might be a pure bundle of properties (the only pure bundle?), rather than a substratum. |
1513 | The Egyptians were the first to say the soul is immortal and reincarnated [Herodotus] |
Full Idea: The Egyptians were the first to claim that the soul of a human being is immortal, and that each time the body dies the soul enters another creature just as it is being born. | |
From: Herodotus (The Histories [c.435 BCE], 2.123.2) |