Objects And Properties

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 06:44 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164201 wrote:
I did not say that the construct is not the real object. I said that the construct is not a real object. The real apple? It is wherever you put it last (or did you eat it, and forget?). Didn't your mother tell you to keep track of those things? And who, onl earth said that all that we can perceive is a manifestation of constructed images, and not reality? What a bizarre thing to say!

No one has a reality. What one has are beliefs about reality. Reality is what our beliefs are about. Wherever did you get the idea that people have realities? They have beliefs about reality.

Don't be afraid of not owning all of reality. You should fear believing that you do, since that would be insanity. You "own" your beliefs about reality though.

The thing (as I have been trying to point out) is do not confuse your beliefs about the world with the world, and, for pity's sake, don't identity them with one another!


So the construct of the apple is a real apple that is different from the real apple that it is a construct of? That seems at least as bizarre as anything I've ever tried to claim.

If our beliefs about reality are not reality itself, then we never truly experience reality, and that is a very depressing thought. My experience may be different from someone else's, but I will maintain its reality until my death.

If the world is not a world made up of beliefs about it, then it is nothing, at least nothing to be rationally known. You can play with that however you like, but it is unavoidable. That is why the things themselves are not the sum total of reality, because it also involves things that are not.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 06:51 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164206 wrote:
So the construct of the apple is a real apple that is different from the real apple that it is a construct of? That seems at least as bizarre as anything I've ever tried to claim.

If our beliefs about reality are not reality itself, then we never truly experience reality, and that is a very depressing thought. My experience may be different from someone else's, but I will maintain its reality until my death.

If the world is not a world made up of beliefs about it, then it is nothing, at least nothing to be rationally known. You can play with that however you like, but it is unavoidable. That is why the things themselves are not the sum total of reality, because it also involves things that are not.


Where did I write that the construct of an apple (whatever that is) is a real apple? I thought that the notion of the construct has meaning only by contrast with the apple. Sometime it troubles me that my beliefs about reality are not reality; but since I tend to be rather pessimistic, I am generally happy they are not, since my beliefs about reality are often worse than how reality turns out really to be. Of course, for the optimist it is just the reverse. My motto is,"Plan for the worst; hope for the best".
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 07:24 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164208 wrote:
Where did I write that the construct of an apple (whatever that is) is a real apple? I thought that the notion of the construct has meaning only by contrast with the apple. Sometime it troubles me that my beliefs about reality are not reality; but since I tend to be rather pessimistic, I am generally happy they are not, since my beliefs about reality are often worse than how reality turns out really to be. Of course, for the optimist it is just the reverse. My motto is,"Plan for the worst; hope for the best".


Yes, I did misread your earlier post, my apologies.

As for your inherent pessimism, all I can suggest is be careful what you believe. As the great Buddha said.

Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny

Beliefs are a powerful tool, and before you know it you actually become them.

Blind hope is no hope at all. Best and worst are only possible from a specific standpoint, and where we stand on certain beliefs are actually all that remains in our immediate control.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 08:03 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164222 wrote:
Yes, I did misread your earlier post, my apologies.

As for your inherent pessimism, all I can suggest is be careful what you believe. As the great Buddha said.

Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny

Beliefs are a powerful tool, and before you know it you actually become them.

Blind hope is no hope at all. Best and worst are only possible from a specific standpoint, and where we stand on certain beliefs are actually all that remains in our immediate control.


Yes, you seem to read only with your own spectacles. And those distort. It is why you seem to think that beliefs about reality are reality. At least you are consistent; malheureusement!
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 09:08 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164238 wrote:
Yes, you seem to read only with your own spectacles. And those distort. It is why you seem to think that beliefs about reality are reality. At least you are consistent; malheureusement!


Does there exist one set of spectacles for ours to be distorted compared to? Is it not more rational to believe in, and learn from, your own spectacles as those are the only ones you are given?

It may be true that our spectacles often get foggy, but that doesn't mean we have no way to make them clear. We are not the first ones to go down these roads, there are others who paved our way, and it is by following their leads that we are able clearly see which path to follow. I don't know why you allow yourself to fall under the illusion that your situation in life is radically unique, but I assure you, you are not the first person to encounter the problems that you face, and by allowing yourself to learn from others, instead of trying to belittle them, you can actually gain perspective on your own life. All lives are radically intertwined, and no life is separate from all others.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 09:17 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164259 wrote:
Does there exist one set of spectacles for ours to be distorted compared to? .


No, but what would that have to do with it? There is are a lot of spectacles that can be checked against each other. And, aside from that, we have methods that have nothing to do with individual pairs of spectacles. Controlled experiments, for instance, which are designed to make us independent of spectacles. In the case of controlled experiments it is irrelevant what any individual happens to see (or believe he sees). That is the purpose of controlling experiments. To objectify them.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164263 wrote:
No, but what would that have to do with it? There is are a lot of spectacles that can be checked against each other. And, aside from that, we have methods that have nothing to do with individual pairs of spectacles. Controlled experiments, for instance, which are designed to make us independent of spectacles. In the case of controlled experiments it is irrelevant what any individual happens to see (or believe he sees). That is the purpose of controlling experiments. To objectify them.


What good is objectivity if it does not apply to the worlds which are subject to the use of spectacles? Is science not supposed to teach us about the world as it is relevant to us?

All we achieve in controlled experiments is obtaining information only pertinent to the method of measurement it is using. It is impractical to attempt to apply information gained from a controlled experiment to worlds which are in fact beyond our control.

Even when we control the experiment, it is through our spectacles that we control it. Can't you see that there is no objectivity that can be obtained without a subject. There is always a subject/observer for the measurement to be subject to, it is never purely objective.

We live in worlds that are only experienced through spectacles, and to gain any knowledge at all about those worlds, we must use those spectacles that were given.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:23 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164281 wrote:
What good is objectivity if it does not apply to the worlds which are subject to the use of spectacles? Is science not supposed to teach us about the world as it is relevant to us?

All we achieve in controlled experiments is obtaining information only pertinent to the method of measurement it is using. It is impractical to attempt to apply information gained from a controlled experiment to worlds which are in fact beyond our control.

Even when we control the experiment, it is through our spectacles that we control it. Can't you see that there is no objectivity that can be obtained without a subject. There is always a subject/observer for the measurement to be subject to, it is never purely objective.

We live in worlds that are only experienced through spectacles, and to gain any knowledge at all about those worlds, we must use those spectacles that were given.


And this rampant relativism/subjectivism continues.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:31 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164283 wrote:
And this rampant relativism continues.


Lol, I've never once argued for relativism, in fact I've blatantly argued against it.

I'm all for objectivity, but not apart from subjectivity. They do not, and can not, exist separately as most tend to believe.

We avoid relativism rationally, and we achieve rationality not through the use of modern empirical observation, but through inter-subjective discourse. How do I reach objects? I reach objects through a relationship with them. Objects only exist in relationship to something else, otherwise there would be no object to be distinguished.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:38 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164285 wrote:
Lol, I've never once argued for relativism, in fact I've blatantly argued against it.

I'm all for objectivity, but not apart from subjectivity. They do not, and can not, exist separately as most tend to believe.

We avoid relativism rationally, and we achieve rationality not through the use of modern empirical observation, but through inter-subjective discourse. How do I reach objects? I reach objects through a relationship with them. Objects only exist in relationship to something else, otherwise there would be no object to be distinguished.


The mistake which I thought you were making is that because each one of us views this world subjectively (this means from a unique point of view), that we cannot perceive the objective. And therefore cannot know what is objectively true. But we can know what is objectively true.

I'm not sure what you were arguing against with the controlled experiments bit, then.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:43 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164287 wrote:
The mistake which I thought you were making is that because each one of us views this world subjectively (this means from a unique point of view), that we cannot perceive the objective. And therefore cannot know what is objectively true. But we can know what is objectively true.

I'm not sure what you were arguing against with the controlled experiments bit, then.


I am arguing that a controlled experiment gives us a view from nowhere.

We are beings which always view the world from somewhere. How do you suggest that we relate a view from nowhere to a view from somewhere? It cannot be done.

The only way to reach objectivity is to relate different views from somewhere; as we never experience a world from nowhere, it makes no sense to study one.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:47 am
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
We are beings which always view the world from somewhere. How do you suggest that we relate a view from nowhere to a view from somewhere? It cannot be done.


Why do you think that because all views are subjective, that we cannot know the objective? Do you honestly believe we're each living in our own little fantasy world? But you just acknowledged that intersubjectivity exists in regards to many issues. And don't you think that it's reasonable to conclude that if everyone agrees that this chair is in this room, that this chair is actually in this room? If not, why?

It's strange that science has progressed so far on notions which aren't objectively true.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:51 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164292 wrote:
Why do you think that because all views are subjective, that we cannot know the objective? Do you honestly believe we're each living in our own little fantasy world? But you just acknowledged that intersubjectivity exists in regards to many issues. And don't you think that it's reasonable to conclude that if everyone agrees that this chair is in this room, that this chair is actually in this room? If not, why?


Again, I never said we cannot know the objective, but the objective cannot exist without the subjective that it relates to. And really, in the end, they are both the same thing, and the distinction to be made is only a practical one.

The chair exists in the room precisely because everyone agrees that it does. If nobody agreed that the chair existed in the room, then it would not exist in the room. We can inter-subjectively create objective realities, but we cannot get to objectivity without inter-subjectivity.

How far has science progressed? What device are you using to measure?

Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?

Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 02:40 pm
@Pythagorean,
MMP2506 wrote:
Again, I never said we cannot know the objective, but the objective cannot exist without the subjective that it relates to.


The definition of objective is that which is, independent of perception (mind-independent). So what you say is false. The objective of course exists regardless if any mind perceives it. That's what being objective means.

Quote:
The chair exists in the room precisely because everyone agrees that it does. If nobody agreed that the chair existed in the room, then it would not exist in the room.


I really, truly hope you don't believe this. This is the sort of subjectivism that is dangerous. MMP2506, the chair would still exist, no matter if it was perceived. We know, for instance, that the moon existed for thousands of years prior to any consciousness observing it. Things can exist independent of the mind. I really hope you know this.

Quote:
How far has science progressed? What device are you using to measure?

Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?

Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?


Tangential questions that I really don't want to delve into right now. I'm sorry.

Thank you for being polite through all this, though.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 02:45 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164194 wrote:
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.


Thank you! Yes, that's the problem with this dualism. That's the problem with noumena, even if it's useful. Where did reality go? "Oh, it's nothing we can ever know...."
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 02:47 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;164345 wrote:
Thank you! Yes, that's the problem with this dualism. That's the problem with noumena, even if it's useful. Where did reality go? "Oh, it's nothing we can ever know...."


But why would anyone believe that we can never know reality? That sort of belief confuses me. And I'm sure it even confuses the believer.
 
north
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 02:52 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164294 wrote:
Again, I never said we cannot know the objective, but the objective cannot exist without the subjective that it relates to. And really, in the end, they are both the same thing, and the distinction to be made is only a practical one.


Quote:
The chair exists in the room precisely because everyone agrees that it does. If nobody agreed that the chair existed in the room, then it would not exist in the room. We can inter-subjectively create objective realities, but we cannot get to objectivity without inter-subjectivity.


science

Quote:
How far has science progressed?


as far as science has ( the Space program )

science is and will always be a progress in Understanding Nature

thats the essence of Science


Quote:
What device are you using to measure?


what we have learned

Quote:
Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?


certainly

Quote:
Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?


both
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 03:11 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164294 wrote:


How far has science progressed? What device are you using to measure?

Are people happier now than say 300 years ago? Can such a thing even be measured?

Are people's lives easier, or are the just much more complex?


Science has progressed in the last 300 years, and what that means is that we know a hell of a lot more than we did 300 years ago, and the vast bulk of that knowledge is due to empirical science. But isn't that just obvious?
 
Flying Dutchman
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 04:15 pm
@Pythagorean,
The lava example is a DIRECT parallel to the apple example. Temperature is a measure of how fast molecules are moving, that's it. The heat another object feels from it is something totally different and is obviously dependent on the object/interaction. Just as color is a product of a certain wavelength of light interacting with another complex system (a living organism), the feeling of heat is not a primary property of or is located within the lava any more than the melting of a piece of metal is in the lava.

If we want to define "objective properties" of objects to include properties that depend on interactions with other substances, then you're committed to saying that an object has a virtually infinite and unknowable set of properties, since we cannot know how it will interact with unknown/undiscovered material.

You can say that it is an objective fact that I will feel hot when near lava, or that metal will melt in lava, but there is nothing of that interaction in the lava independent of me or the metal, it is merely an abstraction. As MMP2506 said, these are inter-subjectively-created objective realities we're talking about, as opposed the concrete kind of objectivity we're looking for: the holy grail for many philosophers.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 04:29 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164347 wrote:
But why would anyone believe that we can never know reality? That sort of belief confuses me. And I'm sure it even confuses the believer.


I think it's generally acknowledged or believed that our brains automatically structure perception in certain ways.
Quote:

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of how information is represented and transformed in the brain.Cognitive science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This inspires the assumption that there are aspects to reality we will never see. For instance, we can only see a narrow stretch of the electromagnetic spectrum as color. Dogs can hear tones we can't. There are wild theories in physics about "reality" being 11-dimensional.

What do we mean by "reality"? I think that's the crux. If we mean the way we normally experience things, that's a workable meaning for the word. But what about that which we think must be there but we cannot not directly perceive? (Black holes, love, justice) It seems to me that some of our "reality" is directly related to sensation and everyday experience and some of it is more abstract. Are photons real? Of course. But in what way? As our accurate mental model of them? Or is the morning sunlight, experienced by the naked eye, more real than the notion of photons?

I think that reality for humans is largely conceptual, abstract. Where are our memories in spacetime? But surely these memories are real? Perhaps you will agree that the word "reality" works overtime. Smile
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/04/2020 at 09:41:10