In what way was it not correct?

For example, fruits, nuts and seeds have nutritional value; but that value must be actualized by being consumed; it need not be recognized in any psychological sense. — John

Of course, but the value comes from the perceived ability for the food to provide nutrition. As soon as you consume it, you begin to forget about it. It is valuable only when recognized, and what is recognized typically is that which is not-be but could-be.

The food may be instrumentally valuable as a means to maintain a healthy lifestyle - but in this case, a healthy lifestyle is what is being projected ahead in the future as potential. I would say that which has the most value is that which is potential, and the actualization afterwards is the sudden burst immediately followed by a process of decline. Think about an orgasm. The build up, the anticipation, is great. The actual orgasm itself feels good, but was not as good as you hoped, and lasts only a few moments. The best positive actualizations are those which take us by surprise, as we were not expecting anything.

Totally incorrect. Wanna hint?

I would like a full answer. Not interested in cock-teasing.

Eh... I would have led you through it and even touched on how it relates to Aristotle. You would have come out the other side understanding this scientific model better than you ever have. But you had to be a jerk.

On the contrary, knowledge itself is a form of potential, because it allows us to do various things. Knowledge allows one to decide what will or won't happen. So contrary to what you claim, the concept of potential is very relevant for understanding the existence of knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you believe in a deterministic universe and that people don't have free will, even knowledge isn't "potential", because what will happen is defined in advance and there is only possible outcome. Potential is merely an illusion, a mental construct for people who don't have complete knowledge of the universe.

I think you are using a more restricted psychological notion of value; so. of course under your definition it will probably rely on recognition-as-actualization of value. But even here, what about the possibility that something might have unconscious psychological value, insofar as it might benefit a person without their recognition of that benefit?

Still promising the satisfaction you never could or intended to deliver? Life is too short for those coy games.

If you believe in a deterministic universe and that people don't have free will, even knowledge isn't "potential", because what will happen is defined in advance and there is only possible outcome. Potential is merely an illusion, a mental construct for people who don't have complete knowledge of the universe. — Kenshin

So what you are saying is that from a deterministic perspective, potential is not real, it is an illusion. Since we know that with respect to the future, there are some things which may or mat not happen, depending on the actions which human beings take, why adopt a deterministic perspective?

But even here, what about the possibility that something might have unconscious psychological value, insofar as it might benefit a person without their recognition of that benefit? — John

If a person does not recognize a benefit, it can only have an instrumental benefit by maintaining things that are recognized as valuable. I don't see how something can be valuable and yet not be consciously appreciated.

Well, if you insist on that very limited definition of 'value', defining it in terms of it being consciously recognized, then I guess there's little more to be said. All I can say then, is that I think your definition is simply unnecessarily narrow.

I'm not sure what any meaningful instance of value would be that isn't essentially a conscious judgement, that doesn't equivocate.

I've already given examples and I think your inability to accept them is quite simply the result of your narrow focus; and not of anything more subtle or interesting than that.

Okay

So what you are saying is that from a deterministic perspective, potential is not real, it is an illusion. Since we know that with respect to the future, there are some things which may or mat not happen, depending on the actions which human beings take, why adopt a deterministic perspective? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because free will too is an illusion.

Think about how we measure the unmanifest or potential energy, say in the case of fluid dynamics.

Because free will too is an illusion.... — Kenshin

....and therefore I had no choice but to join this forum and write this post

Alrighty then...