Not at all. Color depends on both. It is an interactive property. To say that P is a property of X is just to say that P is true of X. It is true of fire engines that they are red. Which is to say that fire engines have the property of being red.

Not at all. Color depends on both. It is an interactive property. To say that P is a property of X is just to say that P is true of X. It is true of fire engines that they are red. Which is to say that fire engines have the property of being red.

The fire engines and redness in general are both also dependent upon an observer, and if you looked at the article I posted you would understand why. Reality is something which must be observed to exist, that is one of the properties of reality.

To say that fire engines have the property of being red means that I have observed that fire engines have the property of being red. If nobody ever observed redness, than fire engines would never have that property.

Can I provide any more evidence then what I have presented, I thought that article would make things pretty clear?

You are right, that is as simple as you can make it. A normal observer would see the car as red, implying that it is the observer that the redness is dependent upon, not the car.

The fire engines and redness in general are both also dependent upon an observer, and if you looked at the article I posted you would understand why. Reality is something which must be observed to exist, that is one of the properties of reality.

this is the thing

some people suggest that reality ONLY exist if there is an observer to acknowledge the existence of the object

the thing is though , what observer first observed alge ?

That is an awfully confused view. Do these people honestly believe that the universe didn't exist before humans? And if so, how do they explain humans evolving in the first place? How do they explain the earth being here for the first human to even exist on? I guess they think the earth just came to be the moment a lifeform on earth was conscious. Unbelievable stuff here.

This is one of those beliefs I just have to stand in awe over. I can do nothing but put on this face :perplexed:

No, that's not what I was saying. I think the car is red, even though it requires an observer to be perceived. This is why, for instance, I think a red car in a dark room is not black; I think it is red. The car has the property of being red, even though it is a property which requires an observer to be realized. If you claim it is solely dependent on me, then I suppose I can just go around and call things whatever color I want to call them and there's no way I could be wrong? But there's clearly a problem here, don't you think?



So then you believe that no property (whether it be secondary or not) can exist without an observer? You don't believe reality in general can exist without an observer? *facepalm*

I think the spirit of what he was saying is that things don't appear any way at all outside of minds, period. So there's nothing meaningful we can say about properties independent of the very means by which we understand/define them.


Not really sure why I'm being ignored (directed towards Kennethamy). Am I posting too much for a "junior member?" :cool: I thought my posts have been at least as relevent as most others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
this is the thing

some people suggest that reality ONLY exist if there is an observer to acknowledge the existence of the object

the thing is though , what observer first observed alge ?





unfortunately it is the case

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 08:38 PM ----------

Zetherin

there is a lack of depth , understanding , of the Universe and our place in it

plain and simple

No, what is the case is that people are often confused, and are unable to think things through. They seldom ask themselves about the implications of what they say.

If they did, they would recognize that those implications are absurd, and they would not say the things they say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by north http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif
this is the thing

some people suggest that reality ONLY exist if there is an observer to acknowledge the existence of the object

the thing is though , what observer first observed alge ?





unfortunately it is the case

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 08:38 PM ----------

Zetherin

there is a lack of depth , understanding , of the Universe and our place in it

plain and simple






true




they will now

Don't get your hopes up. Most people are reluctant to think their beliefs through, and test them by their consequences. As Bertrand Russell once remarked, many people would rather die than think, and some, in fact, do.

But that doesn't mean that things don't exist independent of minds. They do. That's what we mean when we say something is objective - that no matter if one perceives it, it would still be (mind-independent).

Well of course things don't appear any way independent of minds, because appearance implies perception, and perception (I believe) implies a mind. It's a tautology, really, if that's what he's saying: Things cannot be perceived by minds, if minds didn't exist. Nothing enlightening here.

But that doesn't mean that things don't exist independent of minds. They do. That's what we mean when we say something is objective - that no matter if one perceives it, it would still be (mind-independent).

What do you mean when you say, "So there's nothing meaningful we can say about properties independent of the very means by which we understand/define them."? There's lots of meaningful things we can say about properties.

From a practical everyday point of view, I can't deny this -- that we simply do live as if there is a mind-independent reality. Now this mind-independent reality is of course an abstraction within the mind --but it's a useful distraction, and justified by its utility.