Combining Texts

Ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'The Mind in Nature' and 'Experimental Researches in Electricity'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


7 ideas

8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 1. Powers
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.
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 2. Powers as Basic
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?
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 5. Powers and Properties
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.
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.
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 6. Dispositions / a. Dispositions
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!
8. Modes of Existence / C. Powers and Dispositions / 6. Dispositions / c. Dispositions as conditional
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.
'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.