To even write your response, you're drawing on your innate capacities of reason and speech, which you must have to mount an argument in the first place.

That's what it means. — Wayfarer

I did not preconceive language: I learned it. I did not preconceive reasoning; I developed it over many years, with the help of other people, living and dead. I didn't start arguing 'in the first place'; I just dribbled and grizzled and responded to stimuli like every other infant. The languages I learned did not spring fully armed from the forehead of some progenitor; they evolved from grunts and snarls over three million years. Reasoned argument didn't suddenly burst forth from Athens 400BCE; people debated over everything from whether a berry was safe to eat to how many angels can dance on a pin to whether a newly discovered planet way the hell out in space could theoretically support life.

It seems an obvious, common-sense answer, but the point is that a dumb animal, for instance, might be likewise 'exposed' to a series of events but never form any idea of a causal relationship, unless in terms of stimulus and response. — Wayfarer

it's a precondition for how we perceive and interact with the world. — Wayfarer

Recognition is not precognition. Most of the people who claim to have that are charlatans.
There is an innate potential, which varies greatly among humans, as it does in other animals, and if the environment is favourable, some of us, and them, attain the most mental agility of which we are capable.

It is that abstractive and intellectual ability, easily taken-for-granted, that differentiates h. sapiens from other species. — Wayfarer

Okay, you've found another invisible threshold. I think the difference is of degree; you insist (along with many other humans loath to give up their god-given exceptionality) that it is of kind. I accept that.

All this, I take as evidence that we do not know what "life" is. We seem to believe that there is something called "life", (and it's sort of odd that we name it as a thing, harkening back to "the soul"), but we really do not understand what it means to be alive. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe in English you don't. In other languages we have no trouble using the word that comes out of Google translate when you write "life".

I did not preconceive language: I learned it. I did not preconceive reasoning; I developed it over many years, — Vera Mont

Because you were born with the capacity to learn both, which animals are not, the cleverness of crows notwithstanding.

I would think that since having these categories is actually having a form of knowledge, then we cannot truthfully say "Kant agreed that all our knowledge begins with experience". There is a bit of inconsistency here, whereby it is necessary to either break knowledge into two types, a priori and a posteriori (such as innate and learned), or else we need to provide different principles for understanding the a priori as something other than knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair point. On the other hand, Kant said 'concepts (innate) without percepts (acquired) are empty' - if an infant is not primed with the right experiences, their innate capacities will not be activated. Children raised by wolves - there have been some - do not learn to speak.

Aristotle offered a resolution by portraying this as two distinct layers of potentiality — Metaphysician Undercover

Also true. There are continuities between Aristotle and Kant, after all, Kant adopted Aristotle's categories nearly unchanged.

Also true. There are continuities between Aristotle and Kant, after all, Kant adopted Aristotle's categories nearly unchanged. — Wayfarer

Not true. Do a little research.

The mind’s a priori conceptual contribution to experience can be enumerated by a special set of concepts that make all other empirical concepts and judgments possible. These concepts cannot be experienced directly; they are only manifest as the form which particular judgments of objects take. Kant believes that formal logic has already revealed what the fundamental categories of thought are. The special set of concepts is Kant’s Table of Categories, which are taken mostly from Aristotle with a few revisions. — Kant, Metaphysics, Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy

Because you were born with the capacity to learn both, which animals are not, the cleverness of crows notwithstanding. — Wayfarer

Every sentient being is born with the capacity to learn - and no two of those capacities is exactly the same. Some chimps, gorillas and dolphins may have a greater capacity for learning than some humans. Nevertheless, we draw a hard line between species, not IQ's. Every human ability is a quantitaive advance on some ability possessed by other species, yet we draw a hard line between species, not abilities. Every species has abilities or senses that no other has, yet we value as 'higher' only those we consider exclusive to ourselves, and never wonder how come not one of us can light up his own backside.

The special set of concepts is Kant’s Table of Categories, which are taken mostly from Aristotle with a few revisions. — Kant, Metaphysics, Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy

This is bullshit. Of course there will inevitably be some categories that appear in both sets, but that would not be evidence that Kant "took" those that match from Aristotle. Reflection on possible predicates is sufficient to explain the matches. Do yourself a favour and put the two sets of categories side by side and you will see they are nowhere near the same.

Maybe in English you don't. In other languages we have no trouble using the word that comes out of Google translate when you write "life". — Lionino

Then why did you say there is no agreement between you and some biologists on the question of whether or not viruses are alive? Isn't this an instance of "trouble"?

That some scientists want to include "virus" in what we call "alive" does not bear any issue to how we use the word "life", as for now we use it according to our current scientific theories, which includes bacteria but excludes viruses; when we say "life" we know exactly what each other mean. As a reminder, I am not speaking for/about English.

when we say "life" we know exactly what each other mean. — Lionino

So if I were to ask you (in some language other than English), if you believe that there is "life" in some places of the universe other than on earth, would you be able to tell me exactly what I mean by "life" in this context?

Well, being that your native language seems to be English, no, since you'd translating from it in your head, and you don't seem to know. Otherwise, yes, that is how communication goes.

ince you'd translating from it in your head, and you don't seem to know. — Lionino

Are you saying that people do not use "life" in that way, in languages other than English?

Are you saying that people do not use "life" in that way, in languages other than English? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I am saying that in some other languages — that I know —, people use "life" with no issues. You claim however that we don't know what "life" means. Surely, that is an English word, and I don't speak for it. But in other languages, everybody knows very well what the equivalent for "life" means.

This seems to support my claim rather than yours. Since you name a multitude of types of desires, and the human being must prioritize one over the other in many situations, this seems to support what I said, that we can choose what we want. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point is that we do not determine sui generis what is significant for us, what we care about, So what I have said does not support your claim at all.

The objects of all your mentioned desires, "food, warmth, shelter, sex," are very general. — Metaphysician Undercover

No they are not. The object of the desire for food is food, the object of the desire for warmth is warmth...and the same goes for shelter and sex. The fact that there are many sources, and kinds of sources, of food, warmth, shelter and sex is irrelevant, so I hope you are not trying to make that sophistical argument.

The effect is not the general "desire for food", it is the desire to eat something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, you are trying to make that kind of sophistical argument...if the desire is merely for "something" to eat how is that different from the general desire for food? In any case the argument is not over whether our desires are general or specific, but over whether we are able to determine by fiat what we desire, and/or are able to determine by fiat whether we desire one thing more than another.

Your last paragraph is merely hand-waving. We are what we are and want what we want, and think what we think, and we cannot change any of that simply by fiat. Of course, people do change, but they only do so insofar as they have the capacity for change, and they cannot simply conjure up such a capacity if they don't already possess it.

For example, if you are addicted to tobacco, you won't be able to give it up unless you care about something else that contra-indicates smoking more than you care about smoking. You will either be able to do that, or you will not—we do not create ourselves from scratch.

You do not seem to

Oh, you are trying to make that kind of sophistical argument...if the desire is merely for "something" to eat how is that different from the general desire for food? — Janus

I was clarifying what is meant by "hunger". And, rather than being sophistical, I was exposing your sophistry. When we say that someone has "the desire to eat", we recognize the generality of the supposed "object" by showing that what is actually desired is a particular type of activity, "to eat". There is no actual object, until the person forms a specific desire to eat a particular food item. That particular item is "the object" of the person's desire. When you insist that the very general concept "food" is the object of the hungry person's desire, instead of identifying the activity, you are employing ambiguity to obscure the reality of the situation, in a sophistical way.

n any case the argument is not over whether our desires are general or specific, but over whether we are able to determine by fiat what we desire, and/or are able to determine by fiat whether we desire one thing more than another. — Janus

It appears like you paid no attention whatsoever to my argument. Allow me to rephrase in a very simple way. First, you need to distinguish between the very indefinite feeling of want, or need, from the very specific desire for a particular object. The feeling, which gives rise to the desire, allows for many possible sources to serve as the means for satisfaction. The specific desire for a particular object is the result of a choice from one of the apprehended possibilities. The feeling of hunger for example, allows for a vast multitude of possible food items to serve as the means for satisfaction. The hungry person will choose from the multitude of possibilities and form a desire for one, or a number (perhaps a hierarchy in order of preference) of particular food items. Very clearly, the person determines "by fiat", the particular objects which are desired, and any hierarchical order of preference.

Your last paragraph is merely hand-waving. We are what we are and want what we want, and think what we think, and we cannot change any of that simply by fiat. Of course, people do change, but they only do so insofar as they have the capacity for change, and they cannot simply conjure up such a capacity if they don't already possess it. — Janus

OK, so you believe that a person is what a person is, and what that person is, is "the capacity for change". Since you insist that the person has no capacity to choose, "by fiat", in relation to that capacity to change, I assume you are a hard determinist.

For example, if you are addicted to tobacco, you won't be able to give it up unless you care about something else that contra-indicates smoking more than you care about smoking. You will either be able to do that, or you will not—we do not create ourselves from scratch. — Janus

You clearly understand nothing about will power and determination. The way to quit smoking is to have the will power to quit smoking, and this allows the person to choose a method which is suited for that particular person. It may require numerous attempts of trial and error, as some methods may fail. It is not necessary that the person substitutes the desire for a smoke with the desire for another object, though this may work for some people. The only thing which "contra-indicates smoking" to the extent required to guarantee that the person gives it up, is the will for non-smoking. Therefore, if to give up smoking, it is required that one cares about something else more than the person cares about smoking, this "something else" must necessarily be "not-smoking".

I was clarifying what is meant by "hunger". And, rather than being sophistical, I was exposing your sophistry. When we say that someone has "the desire to eat", we recognize the generality of the supposed "object" by showing that what is actually desired is a particular type of activity, "to eat". — Metaphysician Undercover

Only in an attempt to further your argument:

Hunger is a physiological sensation or pang. The experiencing of hunger, though, does not even necessitate a person's conscious "desire to eat". Case in point: a person who is on a diet (or else fasting, such as for religious purposes) might well at times experience what is relative to the person extreme hunger ... yet the (conscious) person might nevertheless in no way intend to eat anything, thereby having no such desire.

However, when the conscious will concerned aligns, else assimilates, itself with their experienced hunger, then, and only then, will the person consciously desire to appease this physiological sensation which goads: the very appeasing of this physiological sensation then being the immediate object (or maybe better, objective) of concern. And this appeasing of the sensation as a now primary telos will then occur via a very generalized secondary telos of eating something. The specifics of what is to be eaten yet being a matter of choice between available alternatives. Only once this choice between available alternatives is made will there then be a concrete and specific object (or objective) to be realized ... this so as to satisfy the primary (consciously held) telos to all this, which is that of alleviating the underlying pangs of hunger.

I believe that is the essence of freedom of choice. Possibility is general, it is then divided by the mind, individuated into a multitude of specific possibilities. Then what is chosen is a particular. What puts the final nail in the coffin of determinism is the reality of the decision not to choose. Out of all the possibilities, not one is chosen. This is the case in your example of the person fasting. The person is hungry, and has an abundance of possible foods to choose from, yet decides to choose none. Plato used a similar example, of a thirsty man who has an abundance of water in front of him, yet he does not drink because he knows the water is not suitable.

:up:

What puts the final nail in the coffin of determinism is the reality of the decision not to choose. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think hard determinism can have a mind of its own, meaning that it could find justification even for this. But yes, I'm in general agreement with you.

Therefore, if to give up smoking, it is required that one cares about something else more than the person cares about smoking, this "something else" must necessarily be "not-smoking". — Metaphysician Undercover

If you accept that smoking is detrimental to your health, and you care more about maintaining good health than you do about gratifying your desire to smoke then you will give it up. if you care more about gratifying the urge to smoke you won't. The point is that you cannot simply decide by fiat what will be more important to you.

The point is that you cannot simply decide by fiat what will be more important to you. — Janus

Oh yes you can. I was a totally addicted smoker aged about 17 until about 40. Until aged about 60 I was an occasional smoker (= asked other people). When I was addicted I often did things I am ashamed of to get my fix (like, stealing cigarettes.) I was on nicotine gum for a long time (my then-small children called it ‘smoking gum’’.) In the end, the principle that got me off it was Buddhist - I realised that cravings are transient. I worked out that if I could hold off for just as long as it took to smoke a cigarette - about 2-3 minutes - then the craving would pass. That did the trick - before then I was always fantasising about ‘being without for 6 months’. It was the minutes that actually counted.

The last cigarette I smoked was at my 60th birthday, 10 and a half years back.

If you accept that smoking is detrimental to your health, and you care more about maintaining good health than you do about gratifying your desire to smoke then you will give it up. if you care more about gratifying the urge to smoke you won't. The point is that you cannot simply decide by fiat what will be more important to you. — Janus

This is wrong in multiple ways Janus. First, addictions do not work like that. To break an addiction is not a matter of deciding that there is something you care about more than the addiction. It's actually the opposite of this, one must make the addiction, and breaking it, the top priority itself. Second, deciding by fiat is exactly what is done. It is decided that the addiction must be broken.

Hence this aphorism: to learn what it is that endures, first understand what is transient.

To break an addiction is not a matter of deciding that there is something you care about more than the addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's exactly what it is. You can't take appropriate action - whether it's seeking medical help, our counselling, or a support group, whether you go on a retreat or find a displacement mechanism or substitute a different vice - until after you've made that decision. The physical craving hurts, and is easy to give in to. There must be a resolute mental discipline to overcome it.

In the end, the principle that got me off it was Buddhist - I realised that cravings are transient. — Wayfarer

Right, so you cared more about Buddhism and its ideas than you did about smoking. I have no doubt that your advanced age and the sense of the increasing risk of something going wrong with your body if you continued smoking contributed to your desire to quit and enabled you to finally do it. When we are younger it is easier to tell ourselves that the risks of detrimental effects are far away. I have no doubt that if you hadn't cared about those things sufficiently you would have continued to smoke.

you cared more about Buddhism and its ideas than you did about smoking. — Janus

No, not at all. It was the recognition of the momentary nature of craving, that it was something that would pass in a few minutes, rather than fixating on the idea that if I could only stop for six weeks, then the craving would pass. It wasn't until later I realised the connection with the Buddhist 'anicca', impermanence, but I thought it a practical application of that principle.

To break an addiction is not a matter of deciding that there is something you care about more than the addiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't say or imply that it is a matter of deciding anything and then making the feelings follow suit, in fact that is precisely what I have been denying. You simply come to care about something more than the addiction, and are thus able to let it go, or you do not come to care about something more than the addiction and are thus unable to let it go.

The point is that if you hadn't cared about something more than the addiction, then you wouldn't have given up smoking.

You simply come to care about something more than the addiction, and are thus able to let it go, or you do not come to care about something more than the addiction and are thus unable to let it go. — Janus

It's pretty obvious that the exact thing which you need to care about more than smoking, to stop smoking, is not-smoking. If you look into the scientific research on the subject, as my brother did when he quit smoking, you'll find that what has been proven as the best way to quit smoking is to have a strategy, a method, or procedure, and to adhere to it. Having the will to following the prescribed method is not a matter of having something else which you care about more than smoking, unless you name that something else as "not-smoking".

The issue here is the possibility of failure, which is very strong with addictions. If a person proceeds toward quitting by caring about something, or someone, more than smoking, then the smoker depends on this other thing, or other person, to support one's own will power, as a sort of crutch. And of course this can, and often does work. However, if the other thing which the smoker cares about more than smoking fails in its capacity to support the quitter, then the support will be lost and the person will resume smoking without the will to quit. On the other hand, if the smoker approaches quitting with the pure goal of not-smoking, quitting, then the person may move ahead from one failed attempt to another attempt, with the will and determination to keep trying. In this way the appropriate strategy which is suitable to the particular person will inevitably be found. Failed attempts are very common with addictions, and the only thing which bridges the gap from one attempt to quit to the next is the will to stop the addiction.

he issue here is the possibility of failure, which is very strong with addictions. If a person proceeds toward quitting by caring about something, or someone, more than smoking, then the smoker depends on this other thing, or other person, to support one's own will power, as a sort of crutch — Metaphysician Undercover

I cared more about living. On previous occasions, when I concentrated on "not-smoking", I was still thinking all the time about the cigarette I was "not-smoking"; it was still the focal point. Once you move your focus to the better goal - e.g. survival - you don't think quite so much about the thing you're giving up and that saves a lot of energy.

Notice your reference to "previous occasions". That's what I described, the will to get past the failed attempts, until you find the strategy which is appropriate for yourself. The overarching desire was to quit smoking, and it took you a few attempts to find the method suited to you. Then you found success. But you need to remember that the method suited to you is not necessarily the method suited to everyone else. So we can say that what works is to have a method which will bring you to the end goal. The end goal is to quit, but the successful method varies depending on the person. Therefore we cannot say that this or that method is the best method, only that it is necessary to have that one specific end goal, to quit.