7 ideas
16698 | Days exist, and yet they seem to be made up of parts which don't exist [Burley] |
Full Idea: I grant that a successive being is composed out of non-beings, as is clear of a day, which is composed of non-entities. Some part of this day is past and some future, and yet this day is. | |
From: Walter Burley (Commentary on 'Physics' [1325], III text 11,f.65rb), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 18.3 | |
A reaction: The dilemma of Aristotle over time infected the scholastic attempt to give an account of successive entities. A day is a wonderfully elusive entity for a metaphysician. |
16690 | Unlike permanent things, successive things cannot exist all at once [Burley] |
Full Idea: This is the difference between permanent and successive things: that a permanent thing exists all at once, or at least can exist all at once, whereas it is incompatible with a successive thing to exist all at once. | |
From: Walter Burley (Commentary on 'Physics' [1325], III txt 11,f.65rb), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 18.1 | |
A reaction: Permanent things sound like what are now called 'three-dimensional' objects, but scholastic 'entia successiva' are not the same as spacetime 'worms' or collections of temporal stages. |
16719 | The primary qualities are mixed to cause secondary qualities [Burley] |
Full Idea: Secondary qualities are caused by a mixture of primary qualities. | |
From: Walter Burley (De formis [1330], pars post p.65), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 21.2 | |
A reaction: Like paint. He probably has in mind hot, cold, wet and dry as the primary qualities. |
12314 | Audience-relative explanation, or metaphysical explanation based on information? [Stanford] |
Full Idea: Rather than an 'interest-relative' notion of explanation (Putnam), it can be informational content which makes an explanation, which is an 'audience-invariant' contraint, which is not pragmatic, but mainly epistemological and also partly metaphysical. | |
From: Michael Stanford (Explanation: the state of play [1991], p.172) | |
A reaction: [compressed summary of Ruben 1990] Examples given are that Rome burning explains Nero fiddling, even if no one ever says so, and learning that George III had porphyria explains his madness. |
12313 | Explanation is for curiosity, control, understanding, to make meaningful, or to give authority [Stanford] |
Full Idea: There are a number of reasons why we explain: out of sheer curiosity, to increase our control of a situation, to help understanding by simplifying or making familiar, to confer meaning or significance, and to give scientific authority to some statement. | |
From: Michael Stanford (Explanation: the state of play [1991], p.172) |
12315 | We can explain by showing constitution, as well as showing causes [Stanford] |
Full Idea: The powerful engine of my car can be explained by an examination of each of its parts, but it is not caused by them. They do not cause the engine; they constitute it. | |
From: Michael Stanford (Explanation: the state of play [1991], p.174) | |
A reaction: [example from Ruben 1990:221] This could be challenged, since there is clearly a causal connection between the constitution and the whole. We distinguish engine parts which contribute to the power from those which do not. |
4741 | A very powerful computer might have its operations restricted by the addition of consciousness [Clark,T] |
Full Idea: It seems possible that if a powerful multi-tasking computer was then given consciousness, this might restrict its operations instead of enhancing them. | |
From: Tom Clark (talk [2003]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas) | |
A reaction: A nice thought, because it challenges the usual view - that consciousness brings huge intellectual liberty to a mind, and that a mind without it is necessarily restricted. Maybe consciousness is a bottleneck. |