0048 In science, metaphysics is not allowed.

Yet, Aristotle’s four causes allow comprehension, because they step out of the physics of material and instrumental causalities, even as they include them.  Comprehension wraps actuality₂ with a normal context₃ and a potential₁.  The resulting category-based nested form entangles actuality, even as it transcends actuality.

Are triadic relations real?

Are they real enough to provide the ultimate human niche?

0049 Surely, the similarity between the relational structure of Darwin’s paradigm and the specifying sign is unsettling. Dennett writes this similarity out of his many scenarios.  Why?  The similarity stinks of metaphysics.

0050 Say what?

The absence and the presence of metaphysics is on display when comparing the content-level of the Darwinian paradigmand the content level of the human mind, as depicted by those medieval Aristotelian scholastics. 

0051 For the Darwinian paradigm, metaphysics is not allowed.

There is no content-level normal context_3a and potential_1a.

Biologists do not worry about comprehending the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.  All they worry about is the potential of the actuality_2a in defining a niche_1b.

0052 For the scholastic picture of the way humans think, metaphysics is allowed.

Why?

Signs cannot be understood without metaphysics (that is, final and formal causation).

The species impressa_2a is the sign-vehicle of the specifying sign (SV_s), regardless of what is happening_3a and the potential of ‘something happening’_1a.  Yet, the specifying sign-vehicle_2a becomes affordance-rich when the content-level normal context_3a and potential_1a are available.  The normal context_3a associates to formal causation.  The potential_1aassociates to final causation.  Without a content-level normal context_3a and potential_1a, situating an impression_1b becomes difficult and prone to error.  The impression_2a becomes less comprehensible.

0053 When I take my dog on a walk and the beast suddenly puts her tail between her legs (SV_s) , I know that she is upset (SO_s).  That is the specifying sign-relation in action.

When she does so when encountering the neighbor’s cat, I see the cat as well.  The cat triggers a species impressa_2a.  She has prehensile paws that may claw my dog’s nose.

In this instance, what is going on in my brain is more like the selective breeding of synapses, because the actuality independent of the adapting synapses_2a… er… the species impressa_2a presents within a non-empty normal context_3a and potential_1a.

0054 On other occasions, I do not know what is happening_3a nor what possibilities are raised_1a when her tail goes between her hind legs_2a.  

In these instances, what is going on in my brain is more like a wide-open exercise in synaptic selection.  No phantasm seems adaptive until an affordance becomes obvious.

0055 My conclusion?

A species impressa_2a, an impression_2a, a sensation_2a or a feeling_2a marks a human encounter with a thing or event.

If the content-level species impressa_2a is embedded in the normal context of what is happening_3a and the potential of ‘something’ happening_1a, then the affordance_1b is obvious and neuron-facilitated synapse selection_3b produces a familiar species expressa_2a through a Darwinian process similar to selective breeding_1b.  Selective breeding of synapses_1bcorresponds to rote learning.  That is, competence without comprehension.

If the content-level species impressa_2a does not occur in the normal context of what is happening_3a and if the potential of ‘something’ happening_1a is not apparent, then affordance_1b is not obvious and neuron-facilitated synapse selection_3b will not produce a stable species expressa_2b unless an affordance_1b becomes obvious or another process (besides sensible construction) is initiated at a level higher than the situation level.

0056 I know what is happening_3a when Daisy encounters the neighbor’s cat on our morning walk.  I worry that the cat’s fast moving paws may make mince-meat out of my dog’s precious snout.  So, I pull on the leash, in order to avoid confrontation.  That is my example of the selective-breeding of neural synapses.

At the same time, I wonder about other options.  Such wondering introduces an affordance that is not so obvious. Consequently, I have the user-experience of a phantasm_2b that is odd and constantly in need of revision.  Do I call this option, “incompetence without comprehension”?  Or “temptation without a devil”?