# Objects And Properties

MMP2506

Sun 16 May, 2010 10:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164970 wrote:
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?

Flying Dutchman

Sun 16 May, 2010 12:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164970 wrote:
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.

Right, but then you are committed to what I mentioned before. You shouldn't want to say that the car is red anymore than you want to say that the car is "crash." If you want to say that properties emergent from interaction are properties of the independent object, then every object has a set of infinite and unknowable properties, no?

kennethamy

Sun 16 May, 2010 12:35 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164975 wrote:
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?

Evidence for what? Of course, as I said, color is an interactive property. It depends partly on the object, and partly on the observer. But that does not imply that even if color is a property, it is not a property anyway. It is a property, but, unlike other properties, it is interactive. Why cannot an interactive property also be a property?

By the way, it is simply false that for something to exist it has to be observed. If that we true, a store of gold ore would not exist until we observed it. But, then, how could we have discovered it (by observing it) unless it had existence before we observed it? Thus, it is not a property of reality that it be observed. Of course, it is a property of what is observed that it be real. But that is something quite different. You should not confuse the proposition that everything that is observed is real (which is, of course, true), with its converse, the proposition that everything that is real is observed, which is, of course, false.

"Logic is logic, that's all I can say". Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Zetherin

Sun 16 May, 2010 03:57 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164969 wrote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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*

north

Sun 16 May, 2010 06:13 pm
@Zetherin,
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 ?

Zetherin

Sun 16 May, 2010 06:20 pm
@north,
north;165070 wrote:
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:

north

Sun 16 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@Zetherin,
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 ?

Zetherin;165075 wrote:
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:

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

Flying Dutchman

Sun 16 May, 2010 06:38 pm
@north,
Zetherin;165024 wrote:
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.

Zetherin

Sun 16 May, 2010 06:44 pm
@Flying Dutchman,
Flying_Dutchman;165085 wrote:
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.

I'm sorry if you were being ignored. I will rectify that, at least from my end.

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.

kennethamy

Sun 16 May, 2010 09:21 pm
@north,
north;165078 wrote:
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.

north

Sun 16 May, 2010 09:35 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by north [URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif[/URL]
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

kennethamy;165131 wrote:
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.

true

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

they will now

kennethamy

Sun 16 May, 2010 09:41 pm
@north,
north;165138 wrote:
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.

north

Sun 16 May, 2010 09:45 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165143 wrote:
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.

true

but for those who know better , they at least should let it be known , openly

Reconstructo

Sun 16 May, 2010 10:20 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;165089 wrote:

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).

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.

How do we individual humans establish what is "objective" or "mind-independent"? I feel that consensus is key here, and consensus is largely lingual. "Did you see that too or am I crazy?" "Did you say so-and-so to me last night or was that something I dreamed?" Isn't this what the repeatability of scientific experiments is all about? Objective reality is what the sane majority agrees to the existence of. And if we picture this in terms of "mind-independent" reality, I think this is fine for most purposes, even if there certain logical contradictions in this usual and useful way of looking at things. Some ideas are more justified by utility than logical cohesion, in my opinion.

(What do we mean by sane, though? This too is a matter of consensus, I think.)

On the color thing: I think that when we say that the "true" color of snow is white, this same "true color" is a useful abstraction, justified by its utility. Is an object's "true" color just, in everyday terms, it's color to the usual eye-brain-system when lit in the more usual ways?

That said, there are certain logical imperfections in these pragmatically justified abstractions.

Flying Dutchman

Sun 16 May, 2010 10:35 pm
@Pythagorean,
Zetherin;165089 wrote:

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).

But absolutely nothing of what we perceive can concretely describe that which exists independent of our perceptions. "Red" is an appearance, so if we're trying to decide whether color exists in the outside world, the answer has to be no, if by color you mean the subjective experience of color. We observe and experience things that must have external sources, but all the qualities that define what they are (to us) are not existent outside of us. The world outside of our minds is radically different from our perceived reality. They are, again, qualitatively different things are they not?

Zetherin;165089 wrote:

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.

Sorry, what I meant to say was: "there is nothing meaningful we can say about properties which are independent of the very means by which we define and understand what a property is." Everything we know about our experience of a chair simply is not present in the atomic description of the chair. They are two different things. Red is not a property of the apple and blue is not a property of the sky. They are both properties of the mind.

Here's a possible argument: One must admit that whether the property of "red" is shared in both the mind and the apple, it is at least present within the mind. And if "red" is present in the mind, how can that possibly be the same thing which is present in the outside (extra-mental) world in a physical object? E.G, how can the pain i feel from a pinprick tell me anything about the pin as it exists outside of my mind?? I believe this to be an accurate analogy to color as far as this conversation is concerned.

Perhaps if everyone stated their particular ontological viewpoints (conceptual schemes) about the world in general, we would understand each other better and the discussion would be more efficient.

kennethamy

Sun 16 May, 2010 10:41 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;165159 wrote:
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.

Are you actually arguing that because the idea of a mind-independent reality is an abstraction in the mind, that mind-independent reality is an abstraction in the mind. That is exactly like arguing that since the idea of an elephant is an abstraction in the mind, that an elephant is an abstraction in the mind.

Pathetic.