Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Amateur question - please help

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Amateur question - please help

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi,

I am not a philosopher, and I am having a discussion with somebody so I thought to ask a second opinion as I suspect there is some bias involved.

This phrase

"If we observe objects evolving, then the objects exist (in the intelligible sense) and can be described in accordance with the observation"

Or

"If an evolution is observed into an unknown phenomena then,
if the observation is correct,
it means that the objects that are evolving
exist and
their "shape" is accordingly with the observation that describes the evolution. "

They both refer to the same idea I am not sure which one captures it better.

My question to you if this idea id absolutely true or partially or... are there any exceptions from it?

Does the nature of the objects evolving somehow interfere with the conclusions that the evolving objects exist and that is their "shape"?

Thanks

@raffethefirst,

So if a piece of paper is burning (evolving into ash and smoke?), does the piece of paper exist and can you describe it (say that it is a piece of paper and that it is on fire)?

Is that what you are asking or did I not understand?

@Jebediah,

I cant find a good example

We see an evolution of a phenomena but we dont know what is the phenomena. We just see that something is evolving.
Will this fact itself - the observed evolution - be prove that there are some objects that
exist and
we can extract something about their shape from the logic of the evolution?

are those conclusions always true or they might not be, because the nature of the evolving objects?

@raffethefirst,

raffethefirst;139706 wrote:

I cant find a good example

We see an evolution of a phenomena but we dont know what is the phenomena. We just see that something is evolving.
Will this fact itself - the observed evolution - be prove that there are some objects that
exist and
we can extract something about their shape from the logic of the evolution?

are those conclusions always true or they might not be, because the nature of the evolving objects?

There is no straight answer to your question, at least not a metaphysical one. It will come down to who you will believe concerning experience of objects. There are many different views on the subject, I'm not the one to list them, but coming from an empirical perspective, I would say that the observation of a phenomenon is evidence that there is a phenomenon, in the strictly physical sense. Now, someone may see a "ghost" and the phenomenon is chemistry in their brain, but one should still be safe to posit that a phenomenon occured.

@raffethefirst,

Well, I question the value of discussing a theory without some idea of what an example of it would be. Sounds like a good way to make things more confusing then they are, and get tripped up on words.

At this point the only thing to say is "What are objects?", "What is evolution?", and "What is observation"?, etc.

@Jebediah,

>> "What are objects?"

This is almost my question.
I wonder if the nature of different objects could lead us to different conclusions.

I will think how to explain it and come back Smile

@raffethefirst,

raffethefirst;139698 wrote:

Hi,

I am not a philosopher, and I am having a discussion with somebody so I thought to ask a second opinion as I suspect there is some bias involved.

This phrase

"If we observe objects evolving, then the objects exist (in the intelligible sense) and can be described in accordance with the observation"

Or

"If an evolution is observed into an unknown phenomena then,
if the observation is correct,
it means that the objects that are evolving
exist and
their "shape" is accordingly with the observation that describes the evolution. "

They both refer to the same idea I am not sure which one captures it better.

My question to you if this idea id absolutely true or partially or... are there any exceptions from it?

Does the nature of the objects evolving somehow interfere with the conclusions that the evolving objects exist and that is their "shape"?

Thanks

Nothing can evolve or do anything else unless it exists. Therefore, if something has any property whatsoever, that something exists. "Nothing has no properties". Descartes.

@raffethefirst,

If you observe a physical occasion, and determine it is evolving, then you have decided that it exists. We are not talking about crude sense-data here, but an object mediated by human meaning: it is a coherent object and it is evolving (or perhaps merely changing).
Under this perspective, it is a great leap to imagine that objects "have" a nature.

@jgweed,

jgweed;139906 wrote:

If you observe a physical occasion, and determine it is evolving, then you have decided that it exists. We are not talking about crude sense-data here, but an object mediated by human meaning: it is a coherent object and it is evolving (or perhaps merely changing).
Under this perspective, it is a great leap to imagine that objects "have" a nature.

I agree that if you observe something do something, then it exists, since nothing can do anything unless it exists. But, how is it a matter of decision that it exists. No one decides whether something exists or not. People may, however, decide whether they believe something exists.

@kennethamy,

Here is an example:

say there is a popular legend about some unicorns.
and that legend is describing an unknown before phenomena that is evolving.
now we observe a pattern in that evolving phenomena described - but that pattern was not known - it is not part of the legend.

what can be said about this situation?
could the fact that we spotted a pattern to be actually prove that there is something true there?
or the fact that the pattern is spotted in a popular legend makes the whole thing absolutely false?

@raffethefirst,

raffethefirst;144282 wrote:

Here is an example:

say there is a popular legend about some unicorns.
and that legend is describing an unknown before phenomena that is evolving.
now we observe a pattern in that evolving phenomena described - but that pattern was not known - it is not part of the legend.

what can be said about this situation?
could the fact that we spotted a pattern to be actually prove that there is something true there?
or the fact that the pattern is spotted in a popular legend makes the whole thing absolutely false?

we observe a pattern in that evolving phenomena described - but that pattern was not known - it is not part of the legend.

What do you mean by that? What have we spotted?

@kennethamy,

>> What do you mean by that? What have we spotted?

like something logical - **** this is hard to extract Smile

I do agree you cant have an opinion without understanding the q.

so there is a story about unicorns - that describes something unknown.
lets say the unicorn dies and then he came back to life magically but always with a different personality.
the legend only vaguely describes the personality - how he is but we spot there a pattern like

the things that he wants are always what he would have wanted if he would have fulfilled the previous ones (assuming that after you have something you want something else in an infinite circle).
this pattern has nothing to do with the legend.
the legend is created by many generations and is spread across the globe - always perfected but this pattern is not known - we just observed it.

the q is the same:

what can be said about this situation?
could the fact that we spotted a pattern to be actually prove that there is something true there?
or the fact that the pattern is spotted in a popular legend makes the whole thing absolutely false?

@raffethefirst,

raffethefirst;144282 wrote:

Here is an example:

say there is a popular legend about some unicorns.
and that legend is describing an unknown before phenomena that is evolving.
now we observe a pattern in that evolving phenomena described - but that pattern was not known - it is not part of the legend.

what can be said about this situation?
could the fact that we spotted a pattern to be actually prove that there is something true there?
or the fact that the pattern is spotted in a popular legend makes the whole thing absolutely false?

If you look at a cloud and notice it looks exactly like an elephant, what is the nature of the elephant? Is that what you're asking?

@raffethefirst,

raffethefirst;139698 wrote:

Hi,

I am not a philosopher, and I am having a discussion with somebody so I thought to ask a second opinion as I suspect there is some bias involved.

This phrase

"If we observe objects evolving, then the objects exist (in the intelligible sense) and can be described in accordance with the observation"

Or

"If an evolution is observed into an unknown phenomena then,
if the observation is correct,
it means that the objects that are evolving
exist and
their "shape" is accordingly with the observation that describes the evolution. "

They both refer to the same idea I am not sure which one captures it better.

My question to you if this idea id absolutely true or partially or... are there any exceptions from it?

Does the nature of the objects evolving somehow interfere with the conclusions that the evolving objects exist and that is their "shape"?

Sorry to say, this is the premesis of naivity, group think and mass manipulation, the spin doctors and demagogues delightful playground.

Too many times utterly naive persons has said "but i saw it on TV, therefore it must be true" ..no it's manipulation, propaganda!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;139743 wrote:

Nothing can evolve or do anything else unless it exists. Therefore, if something has any property whatsoever, that something exists. "Nothing has no properties". Descartes.

What is that principle called? I found its Wiki page recently, but I can't seem to find it again.

Also, it is formalizable as (∀F)(∀x)(Fx→(∃x)).

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Amateur question - please help

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Amateur question - please help

Quick Links

My Account

able2know