We both agree on what we would observe and the physical explanation for it. Do we "mean the same thing"? Maybe it is just a fight about words again, about primary inherent and secondary perceived properties? I am certainly not in the camp that says the apple disappears when not perceived by human minds. On the other hand objects do not exist independently of the rest of reality (what some call the fallacy of misplaced concreteness).

No, I do not think we all understand the difference between primary properties and secondary properties or the qualia of objects.

Primary properties resemble the real properties of the object. Locke, in his book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, said they are "utterly inseparable from the body" and necessary for conception of it. Primary properties include: solidity, extension, figure, motion and rest, and number.Secondary properties, Locke argues in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, are "nothing in the objects themselves but powers to produce various sensations in us," and conceptually inessential. Secondary properties include: colour, temperature, smell, taste and s
"By convention there are sweet and bitter, hot and cold, by convention there is color; but in truth there are atoms and the void"-Democritus, Fragment 9.[1]
"I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we locate them are concerned, and that they reside in consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated"-Galileo Galilei, The Assayer (published 1623).[2]
"For the rays, to speak properly, are not colored. In them there is nothing else than a certain power and disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that color."-Isaac Newton, Optics (3rd ed. 1721, original in 1704).[3]

Color is clearly a secondary property one which requires perception not one which is inherent in the object. The apple is not red. The apple is perceived as red under certain conditions. Semantics?

To say that apples are red is just to say they are perceived as red (by a normal observer) under (normal) conditions. I don't know whether that is semantics or not. But it does not seem to matter much, as long as the issue is not a trivial one. Semantics, so far as I understand it, implies triviality.

"What color is your average apple?"
If you ask your man on the street- probably "red"
If you ask an apple conosieur , "apples can be yellow, green, red, many colors"
If you ask a physicist "the apple is whatever wavelenght it reflects"
If you ask a philosopher "it depends on who or what is perceiving".
Philosophy in its attempt to find unifying principle may lose both clarity and common sense.:a-thought:

How would objects exist independent of reality? If an object exists, it is part of reality. Everything that exists is part of reality, isn't it?

But moving on.

If a red apple is in a dark room, why do you think it is no longer a red apple? If you answer, "Because color is a secondary property", this does not answer the question. We know very well that that color is a secondary property. But let's compare color to another secondary property, temperature. Let's suppose there are a few active volcanoes spewing out lava right now, and no one is around to perceive the lava. Does this mean that the lava isn't hot? Not that I can see. The lava still has the property of being hot, no matter when, or if, the lava is ever perceived.

If you were wearing a lava proof suit, I don't think it would be hot at all. That is because temperature is a thing that must be observed, and then it is determined according to its observer. What is hot to one observer might be warm to another.

We would think Antarctica would be cold, but if we were able to speak to a penguin, he might tell us he feels quite comfortable.

If you were wearing a lava proof suit, I don't think it would be hot at all. That is because temperature is a thing that must be observed, and then it is determined according to its observer. What is hot to one observer might be warm to another.

We would think Antarctica would be cold, but if we were able to speak to a penguin, he might tell us he feels quite comfortable.

oh please
[/LIST]
so 4 billion yrs ago , the was no molten lava because there was no observer ?

really ?

what do you know about penguins ?

Well the notions of hot or cold are perceptive but objects have an absolute physical temperature which is not I would say dependent on sensory perception?
I undestand that color, taste, smell are secondary properties (what some call qualia) but I am not sure why physical temperature would fall in that category as opposed to hot or cold.

In any event I think Locke had it right the first time: some properties of objects are perception dependent and others are not. Should we say an "an apple is red" when that property is not inherent but perception dependent? I do not know. Again seems like semantics or world play to me.

Originally Posted by north
oh please
[/LIST]so 4 billion yrs ago , the was no molten lava because there was no observer ?

Did I say anything about whether it would be molten?

I don't know how you abstracted that out of what I said. I said it could not be hot unless there was an observer, because the measurement of heat requires an observer to measure it.

Heat is not something that is part of the thing, but is a result of things relationship to another thing.

Whether or not it was melted rock, that is another question.

Quote:

to the material , it was hot enough to melt it

I know they can habitat in an area that gets below -50 degrees Fahrenheit and we cannot. I would assume we would feel a bit colder than a penguin if we were to attempt to habitat there, but that my be an over-assumption on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
really ?

what do you know about penguins ?



it is an over sight

they huddle in enormous groups , in somewhat of a circle and take turns in being at the center and on the outside of the circle

What did I overlook?

I fail to see what that has to do with their ability to maintain a habitat there, and I still would suggest that their ability to do so is better than humans even if we were able to huddle up in a circle.

O so it is your opinion that rocks can feel sensation? When will you publish your findings?

I feel you are completely missing my point.

I'm not talking about the amount of potential a thing has, because it requires more potential for some things to melt than others. What is hot is dependent upon the observers tolerance of this potential.

Temperature which is essentially the energy of vibrating molecules in motion is not dependent on illumination or on human perception. Temperature as used in physics is not a secondary property or a qualia. If it was a cold room the temperature would change.

Should we say an "an apple is red" when that property is not inherent but perception dependent?

"What color is your average apple?"
If you ask your man on the street- probably "red"
If you ask an apple conosieur , "apples can be yellow, green, red, many colors"
If you ask a physicist "the apple is whatever wavelenght it reflects"
If you ask a philosopher "it depends on who or what is perceiving".
Philosophy in its attempt to find unifying principle may lose both clarity and common sense.

If you were wearing a lava proof suit, I don't think it would be hot at all. That is because temperature is a thing that must be observed, and then it is determined according to its observer. What is hot to one observer might be warm to another.

"What color is your average apple?"
If you ask your man on the street- probably "red"
If you ask an apple conosieur , "apples can be yellow, green, red, many colors"
If you ask a physicist "the apple is whatever wavelenght it reflects"
If you ask a philosopher "it depends on who or what is perceiving".
Philosophy in its attempt to find unifying principle may lose both clarity and common sense.:a-thought:

I don't have an average apple. In fact, average apples are not colored. Indeed, there is no average apple anymore than there is the average man. Both are (as people nowadays like to say) "constructs", and constructs do not have colors.

What unifying principle are you talking about in this case? But I would say that anyone who talks about a construct as if it were a real object would be the one who loses both clarity and common sense.

If the construct is not the real object, then where is the real object? If all that we can perceive is a manifestation of constructed images, and not reality, at what time does what we experience become real?

Our perceptions create our experience, to what extent these perceptions correlate to some mind independent reality seems arbitrary. Our reality is what we have constructed, and if this isn't our reality, then I fear we have none.