The peanut challenge

@manored,

It would be easy for me Smile

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk278/DaveBrett99/Mr_peanut-1.png

@Aedes,

Wow, Aedes, you look good enough to eat. I've never noticed it before; this is by far the best picture of you on the forum.

@manored,

Hypnosis is an awesome tool for jobs like this! *__-
Brainwashing works as well. Even better with hypnosis. Talk about 'conversion'!

@nameless,

Sounds like a job for Derren Brown and his Trick or Treat show: 'Today's contestant got a trick card... so I am going to convince him that he is a peanut using a mixture of hypnotism, suggestion and psychology.'

@de budding,

Hypnosis? Good point, Nameless. Though I would extend the idea a little: how about good old torture? Or maybe some better new torture? Somebody remembers "1984"? "How many fingers, Winston?". Yes, 2 + 2 = 5, if Big Brother says so. The Inner Party had its methods...

P.S. The golden dawn rises in my head. Manored, do you happen to know the answer yourself?? Did you give us half-of-a-joke ;-) ? If it's not a joke then it's a koan, or is that the same? Ok, my answer is..

Ask the peanut!

Boinng!!!! Satori! Laughing

@manored,

If someone knew what the word "peanut" meant, and what the word "human" meant, it would seem difficult to convince him that the two could be applied to the same object.

@jgweed,

Ive convinced loads of people im a nutter so it could only be a little step by persuasion for them to agree im a peanutter..

@jgweed,

You could look at the issue through the theory of perception and immaterialist principles by George Berkeley. Berkeley's immaterialism is essentially what Locke's empiricism upheld, which was that all knowledge comes from experience. However, for Berkeley, if we are directly aware of nothing but ideas (which he asserts in Principles of Human Knowledge) then we have no reason to believe in the existence matter, nor would we have any concept of matter. Long story short, Berkeley asserts that there is no material substance? only immaterial substance called spirits.

How does this tie into the perception of a person as a peanut? In principle 4 of Principles, Berkeley basically says that if we are aware of nothing but ideas (i.e. the idea of peanut? though it was not really meant in this context). So take this three step logical proof.

1) We perceive Desks, Chairs, and Houses
2) But we perceive nothing but our own ideas or sensations, which exist only in our minds.
3) Therefore, Desks, Chairs, and Houses are ideas or sensations, which cannot exist unperceived.

Berkeley asserts (again) that there is no material substance, only immaterial substances. Now if you apply Berkeley's immaterialist thesis to the perception of a man as a peanut (or really how to convince a person that they are in fact a peanut), the person does not need (under this theory) to be concerned with the empirical facts of the attributes of what it is to be a peanut, but rather the idea of a peanut. The idea of a peanut is susceptible to mental manufacturing, which can be a combination of mental abstraction. So, the person could have isolated abstract elements which could resemble a peanut, like a body shape resembling a peanut.

So, how do you convince a person that they are a peanut. Assert that matter is immaterial, posit notions of mental manufacturing and abstract ideas in which they could resemble the idea of a peanut. If nothing exists but ideas? a peanut could be anything.. including a peanut-shaped person.

Esse Est Percipi (to be is to be perceived)

@VideCorSpoon,

Lets be serious here for a mo ..can you really believe that its possible that if we even tried we could convince anyone other than someone who already thinks he is a peanut..I like experiments but slightly sane ones..

@xris,

Can there be any seriousness in abstraction?

@VideCorSpoon,

Catchabula wrote:

Hypnosis? Good point, Nameless. Though I would extend the idea a little: how about good old torture? Or maybe some better new torture? Somebody remembers "1984"? "How many fingers, Winston?". Yes, 2 + 2 = 5, if Big Brother says so. The Inner Party had its methods...

P.S. The golden dawn rises in my head. Manored, do you happen to know the answer yourself?? Did you give us half-of-a-joke ;-) ? If it's not a joke then it's a koan, or is that the same? Ok, my answer is..

Ask the peanut!

Boinng!!!! Satori!

Ever since I read Douglas Adams, I started to like to present people with absurd problems that are actually intriguing, just like he did so well. And I like joking too Smile

jgweed wrote:

If someone knew what the word "peanut" meant, and what the word "human" meant, it would seem difficult to convince him that the two could be applied to the same object.

Most people dont know about language to be so sure of it... if you presented yourself certain and acknowledged enough, and invented a convincing story to explain how they had never heard about that, I think most people would end up trusting you.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

You could look at the issue through the theory of perception and immaterialist principles by George Berkeley. Berkeley's immaterialism is essentially what Locke's empiricism upheld, which was that all knowledge comes from experience. However, for Berkeley, if we are directly aware of nothing but ideas (which he asserts in Principles of Human Knowledge) then we have no reason to believe in the existence matter, nor would we have any concept of matter. Long story short, Berkeley asserts that there is no material substance? only immaterial substance called spirits.

How does this tie into the perception of a person as a peanut? In principle 4 of Principles, Berkeley basically says that if we are aware of nothing but ideas (i.e. the idea of peanut? though it was not really meant in this context). So take this three step logical proof.

1)We perceive Desks, Chairs, and Houses
2)But we perceive nothing but our own ideas or sensations, which exist only in our minds.
3)Therefore, Desks, Chairs, and Houses are ideas or sensations, which cannot exist unperceived.

Berkeley asserts (again) that there is no material substance, only immaterial substances. Now if you apply Berkeley's immaterialist thesis to the perception of a man as a peanut (or really how to convince a person that they are in fact a peanut), the person does not need (under this theory) to be concerned with the empirical facts of the attributes of what it is to be a peanut, but rather the idea of a peanut. The idea of a peanut is susceptible to mental manufacturing, which can be a combination of mental abstraction. So, the person could have isolated abstract elements which could resemble a peanut, like a body shape resembling a peanut.

So, how do you convince a person that they are a peanut. Assert that matter is immaterial, posit notions of mental manufacturing and abstract ideas in which they could resemble the idea of a peanut. If nothing exists but ideas? a peanut could be anything.. including a peanut-shaped person.

Esse Est Percipi (to be is to be perceived)

Nice answer, thought I think most people would refuse to admit they resemble peanuts Smile

I found an answer better than convincing then of that human and peanut can mean the same: Make then read the five book trilogy of douglas adams in one go, then claim my peanutness...

@manored,

D.A.

Oddly enough, the plants last thought was, "Oh no, not again."

Or

Flying is the art throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

By the way. I am going to convince someone that I am actually a peanut. I will share the results when I get around to it.

@Icon,

Manored,

Too be honest, I think jgweed's response has a good deal of merit compared to mine. He underlines a very essential element in language and philosophy. Lewis Carroll (real name Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was of course the author of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," but he was also a mathematician and logician and shed light on this issue.

But one of his sub stories is a must for students of philosophy in regards to language? namely Humpty Dumpty. Many people understand humpty Dumpty from the nursery rhyme, "Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, humpty dumpty had a great fall, etc." But the real story of Humpty Dumpty is far more complex and encapsulates your thoughts well I think.

In the story, Alice meets Humpty sitting on a wall, and they have a conversation that eventually leads to the concept of the un-birthday. Alice is puzzled by the concept of an un-birthday, which Humpty describes as 365 - 1 = 364 un-birthdays. Alice finally gets it, and Humpty states his famous words "that's glory for you." Alice is confused because that is not the context in which glory is used. Humpty replies "I meant there's a nice knock down argument for you!" Of course, we know that that's not what glory means. But Humpty basically replies "glory means whatever I mean it to mean."

Here is where this all addresses your comment. Alice states "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." That's the underline issue, which is not resolved as Humpty continues to use words that do not follow their accepted use and Alice gets flustered and leaves. But basically, Humpty Dumpty claims that the meaning of the words he used (i.e. un-birthday, glory, pay-it-forward, etc) are not constrained at all. If you compare that to Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver goes to the academy, we understand the meaning of an expression by understanding its use.

So jgweed I think underlines a problematic account of semantics and perception.

@VideCorSpoon,

That peanut is obsessing! Did I read badly again? Methinks I didn't saw it mentioned. First thing I thought when I read this posting was actually Shakespeare's famous quote: "What's in a name? That what we call a rose, by another name would smell as sweet". Call a man a peanut, and he may be angry in the beginning, but that's just the old habit. After a while he may be comfortable with the name and there he is: a peanut! (We could call a peanut a man in the same move). But IS he a peanut? Why not? A peanut is an animal on two legs, with the gift of reason. See Aristotle's "On Peanuts". Where's the flaw here?

@manored,

If we apply Aristotle to this, wouldn't it be that a person is a peanut not in virtue of its substantial and predicative attributes but the underlying substrate of peanut?

Would this then mean that it is not being qua being but peanut qua peanut? Simply... peanut as peanut in itself.

@VideCorSpoon,

Is it a salted peanut, roasted on the floor of the cinema,rejected, trampled ,forgotten..it should be the suicide thread.I can see im not really cut out to be a philosopher but then i am a peanut .

@VideCorSpoon,

"So much is admirable, but nothing is more admirable than the peanut" (Sophocles). Isn't it wonderful that we are peanuts and that we can ask Aristotle's questions? Doesn't this proove the dignity of the peanut, his special place in creation? Imho the question remains: how can we convince a peanut that he's a man? The moral of the story being that it may be good for peanuts to compare themselves from time to time to the insignificance of man. "A peanut is a man, the weakest in the world, but he is a man that thinks" (Pascal).

@manored,

xris wrote:

Is it a salted peanut, roasted on the floor of the cinema,rejected, trampled ,forgotten..it should be the suicide thread.I can see im not really cut out to be a philosopher but then i am a peanut .

xcris,

yes you are cut out to be a philosopher... we are all talking about the metaphysical possibilities (and what not) of a peanut. No better place for a philosopher to be than in a bag full of nuts.

Vides comment on the comment: no disrespect philosophyforum.
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: You know I'm just joking, right philosophy forum?
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: Thanks.

See? Nuts.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

xcris,

yes you are cut out to be a philosopher... we are all talking about the metaphysical possibilities (and what not) of a peanut. No better place for a philosopher to be than in a bag full of nuts.

Vides comment on the comment: no disrespect philosophyforum.
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: You know I'm just joking, right philosophy forum?
Philosophyforum's reply: No problems Vide.
Vides reply: Thanks.

See? Nuts.

Ge fanks bros..replies too short so il add this..

Philosophy Forum

The peanut challenge

Quick Links

My Account

able2know