I don't pretend to say anything with absolute certainty. Proof of what? That there are no material objects? What is that proof? There are, I guess, bad arguments for it, though. Have you a good argument?

.

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 10:28 AM ----------

"proof" O.K. ? ...is it better ?
Can you now please move on to the questions that I have pose to you ?
Stop the smoking manoeuvres and use your well doted brain, if you please...

No, worse.
I thought I did answer your questions. What question did I not answer?

Are you having a laugh ? ...at this point you must be falling of the chair laughing, you old "fox"...(no harm ment)

Another remark to ad:

...An incomplete description of an Object could only refer to it by the Noumenon and symbolically, otherwise you would in fact be referring to something, that only you in yourself could have finished, a concept...(Identity recognition requires perfection)

this one for instance...

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 10:46 AM ----------

And this one too...

this one for instance...

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 10:46 AM ----------

And this one too...



---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 10:48 AM ----------



plus this one...

The point has been made in several different ways that this is an assumption, but is it not a justified one? It is one thing to admit to an assumption, it is another to prove that assumption unjustified... All of these arguments have the ability to make sense, but they are all either metaphysical or they deny the metaphysical... However, I see no means to distinguish between them without having knowledge beyond my ability to experience, so why should I overturn my assumption that my concept of objects refer to things in an independent reality, even if I can only gauge my experience of those "objects"?

Insofar as I understand the questions, they just express skepticism ("wh is to say....?) about the existence of material objects. But present no arguments. Expressing skepticism is not an argument. Have you an argument? Also, I do not know what it is for a description to be complete or incomplete unless you are able to tell me how the description falls short. And why should it follow that because a description is incomplete, that nothing answers to that description? Suppose I ask someone to ask the bald man over there what time is it. Suppose the description, "the bald man over there" is incomplete (whatever that means). Does that mean that there is no bald man over there? Why?

How about addressing my questions for a change?

And those arguments from neuroscience, are they good arguments for the conclusion that there are no material objects? Could you present one, so we can discuss it? I am very suspicious of scientific results that are supposed to have philosophical implications.

I meant either in favor of the metaphysical or against it. Each argument has a certain twist on it, but even if one is arguing for skepticism it is by means of arguments for and against the metaphysical. I think kenneth is arguing skepticism also, just skepticism of each argument presented to him. It does seem justified to think there is an independent reality, even though I only hold to that on an empirical level. Any argument from neuroscience seems to assume we can observe an independent reality, so I'm not sure how you plan on using that for your side of things?

I meant either in favor of the metaphysical or against it. Each argument has a certain twist on it, but even if one is arguing for skepticism it is by means of arguments for and against the metaphysical. I think kenneth is arguing skepticism also, just skepticism of each argument presented to him. It does seem justified to think there is an independent reality, even though I only hold to that on an empirical level. Any argument from neuroscience seems to assume we can observe an independent reality, so I'm not sure how you plan on using that for your side of things?

I would not frame the position quite that way. If one says there are objects whose existence is independent or which may have properties not detected by our perceptions of them- that notion or assertion seems patently, obviously, prima facie true as you state. The universe (the moon, the stars, the earth) goes on with or without our ability to perceive them. So I think realism is true.



It must be admitted that some aspects of reality quite likely pretty much correspond to the way we perceive them to be. The very strong predictive power of science should give one pause about discounting the truth of perception to reveal much of reality.

I am still in the camp who asserts that there is much truth and much reality that is not revealed by science or by sense perception. I do not think one can have it both ways. Clearly science and sense perception yield some forms of truth but the assertion that they reveal all forms of truth and knowledge does not follow and neither does the assertion that they reveal nothing of true knowledge (the thing in itself). Complete knowledge like complete truth are not available to human minds. Truth is discovered not invented and reality is perceived not invented.

One could make the subtle argument that human reality consists totally of perceptions and mental constructs but that would be different than the notion that there is no reality other than human reality. I am reminded of the Berkeley limerick about the tree does not cease to be because god is always about in the quad. Humans are not the only perceiving objects and not the sole determination of the relationship between "objects" of reality. Of course for me reality is about process and relationship not about objects and properties but I do not share the anthropomorphic point of view (if it is not perceived by human minds it does not exist) some seem to express.

Would someone finally make an argument that there are no material objects? Undoubtedly, there are some things that we don't know. What has that to do with it? The thing is to stop going around the Mulberry bush.

I am not denying that there are "material objects". I am just wondering what you mean by "material" and by "object" with respect to "independent reality" and our perception or conception of it.

The real argument is to what degree our perceptions correspond to as opposed to create reality. My position is there is a high degree of truth and correspondence (but not perfect and complete)between reality and our perception of it. Is that not your position?

If we are to grant an objective reality to objects, does that not imply that there is an objective space and time? And isn't Newton refuted on this point by modern comological conceptions?

There is no such thing as an objective measure of time or space, so how can we assign realism to any objects which must occupy a certain time and space???

There has been a revolution in modern science stating the indeterminability of the physical. Fundamental uncertainty has been proven already.

I wonder why you would say this. You must mean that if there were no physiological effects, we would not know about the object. Not that there would be no object.