bio evolution, light, sound and aroma

Dispositions

quote:

---

A glass has certain dispositions, for example the disposition to shatter when struck. But what is this disposition? It seems on the one hand to be a perfectly real property, a genuine respect of similarity common to glasses, china cups, and anything else fragile. Yet on the other hand, the glass's disposition seems mysterious, ‘ethereal’ (as Goodman (1954) put it) in a way that, say, its size and shape are not. For its disposition, it seems, has to do only with its possibly shattering in certain conditions. In general, it seems that nothing about the actual behavior of an object is ever necessary for it to have the dispositions it has. Many objects differ from one another with respect to their dispositions in virtue of their merely possible behaviors, and this is a mysterious way for objects to differ.

---

quote:

---

An object is disposed to M when C iff it would M if it were the case that C.

---

or

quote:

---

An object x is disposed to M when C iff x has an intrinsic property B such that, if it were the case that C, and if x were to retain B for a sufficient time, then C and B would jointly cause x to M.

---

It's a philosophical term of craft/art, for what its worth.

Thanks for the link!

quote:

---

A glass has certain dispositions, for example the disposition to shatter when struck.

---

Okay, I'm getting it.

quote:

---

But what is this disposition? It seems on the one hand to be a perfectly real property, a genuine respect of similarity common to glasses, china cups, and anything else fragile. Yet on the other hand, the glass's disposition seems mysterious, ‘ethereal’ (as Goodman (1954) put it) in a way that, say, its size and shape are not.

---

What is so mysterious about it? Its an amorphous solid that lacks a proper crystalline structure that would allow for dislocations to absorb any damages to the structure. So when it is damaged, it just propagates throughout the entire structure.It seems like "disposition" is just a place-holder for a lack of understanding of the underlying physics.

quote:

---

For its disposition, it seems, has to do only with its possibly shattering in certain conditions.

---

So is it different from a possibility or not?

quote:

---

In general, it seems that nothing about the actual behavior of an object is ever necessary for it to have the dispositions it has.

---

Yeah, its not about the behavior of an object, its about its physical properties, no? Okay, now, if it is if-and-only-if, then that makes a little more sense to me.In that way, it seems like disposition is a bit stronger of a claim than possibility. That is, when something is disposed to whatever given such-n-such, then the whatever happens, no matter what, if such-n-such does. Conversely, if it is just a possibility, then it may or may not happen... it could, but it doesn't have too.Does that sound right?Because if it is, then Andrew isn't really using the word properly. That sounds just like "possibility" to me. Again, I'm not seeing how that is different from a "possibility".

The Goodman (1954) reference might be of interest too. It talks about possibilities and dispositions from about page 40, but I think its a little excessive. I'm guessing because it is uncomfortably haunted by ideas of essentialism.Where is flexibility? What does fragility weigh? That's almost certainly how it started. But any physicist will tell you that while it is possible to describe the wave function of a specific glass vessel interacting with a specific concrete floor at a certain energy, it's easier and precise enough to say 'glasses are disposed to smashing if you drop them', 'lead is malleable', etc.Fragility is not something that is 'obvious' like size or shape. It's a property something has, that only manifests under certain conditions. Well dispositions are specific to entities, and are referring to real properties that have not yet manifested, but will under some condition. It's a philosophical possibility that the glass will turn to gold, but I don't think glass is disposed to turning into gold. Sounds good. A coin might be disposed to coming to rest flat, but its only a possibility it will be head side up. I'm shocked! No, its not bad. Not all glasses shatter. I'm not sure 'ability' is the best choice but while it remains a glass, it has the disposition to shatter. In general parlance I think its quite alright to use either word, disposition is probably a more specific and perhaps more precise word. It's possible that the glass will bounce around chiming the notes from the Godfather theme but I think it would be a push to say that glasses are disposed towards doing that even in common English.

I'm not sure if I don't like the word... or if I just don't like how AndrewPD has been using the term.I feel okay with saying "glass has a disposition to shatter." That has an intuitive correctness about it to me.But I don't like using it for specifics about evolution.
I think it has to do with how specific it is.Evolution has a disposition to generate human eyes. - Big red flags here
Evolution has a disposition to generate vision. - Still a bit uneasy
Evolution has a disposition to generate systems that monitor external stimuli. - I think I could accept thatAnything too specific involving evolution gives the feeling that evolution is aiming for something. Which it's not. It just does whatever... and things that live stay while things that die don't make it.Then again... I don't think I have an issue saying "polar bears have a disposition to be white."
As long as it's also understood that we're talking about modern polar bears that have already evolved to this point.
If we're talking about, say "evolution has a disposition to generate white polar bears." - again... big red flags.But, really, I'm still with RAZD's point. I don't see the added value of using the term "disposition" when talking about science and evolution. It only seems to add unnecessary confusion.Edited by Stile, : The last line really makes the post. Without it, it's a 2. With it... a 9.5. Easy.

I'm pretty sure I dislike it. Generally, we should reserve the use of disposition to objects or entities. Evolution, being a process, doesn't really work.How about:Genes have a disposition to replicate.
or
Genomes have a disposition to mutate.You might get away withpopulations have a disposition to change. Yeah, the goal-oriented implications of disposition can cause problems with discussing a non-goal oriented process. Used carefully, it has utility but having read a bunch of discussion in philosophy my overall conclusion is that it serves to confuse when examined closely.Andrew, in typical creationist ability to not stick to one topic, decided to discuss the dispositions of early chemical environments (eg a primoridal soup or whatever) towards forming life . If we say that certain chemical environments, under certain conditions, will form life then we can say such an environment constitutes a mileu of dispositions that results in the overall disposition to form life. 'The disposition of something on its own is different then its disposition in a context interacting with other things in its environs.'. He does argue this is also true of 'new forms emerging', that there must be some disposition for this for it to occur.His argument seems to be exactly this goal oriented issue. That since chemistry has a disposition to form life, there must be some reason for this disposition. That reason, he argues, is a disposition giver, or creative entity.

Now I see, that's perfectly clear.Thank you for your time, Mod.

The dream this dog is having challenges the materialist paradigm, but loses.