Objects And Properties

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

MMP2506
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 07:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164357 wrote:
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?


Actually new findings in quantum mechanics over the past 100 years are quickly reversing just about everything that was discovered "empirically" over the 300 years prior to it, and I hate to break it to you naive realists, but the your ship has pretty much sunk. Try reading a science journal published since 1920, the world does not exist without an observer. All science has done in the past 400 years is get us back to Aristotle, and yes, put some robots in space.
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 08:29 pm
@MMP2506,
Isn't it that color is simply the property given to an object as our eyes interpret it? The light wave that our sensory receptors manage to interpret gives an object it's color. The color is given by the property of the object as waves interact with it. So, even if it's red, that's how our eyes see it. Without light, objects can be seen in the dark but don't they all look around the same color, black? Light is only seen because we have cones. Without cones, everything would be eternal darkness. We would be blind. So, without light, the property of an object is black. As everything would be black. That leads me to beleive that nothing has color. objects simply have properties that, when light interacts with them, waves are reflected with a certain frequency that our rods and cones can interpret to make a color for it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 10:11 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;164449 wrote:
Actually new findings in quantum mechanics over the past 100 years are quickly reversing just about everything that was discovered "empirically" over the 300 years prior to it, and I hate to break it to you naive realists, but the your ship has pretty much sunk. Try reading a science journal published since 1920, the world does not exist without an observer. All science has done in the past 400 years is get us back to Aristotle, and yes, put some robots in space.


But, our new findings are progress, aren't they? We did not have them earlier. Isn't that right? In any case, I was not referring only to QM. I was referring to discoveries like antibiotics and DNA. And little things like the theory of relativity, the existence of germs, bits and pieces like that.

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 12:13 AM ----------

BrianH;164454 wrote:
Isn't it that color is simply the property given to an object as our eyes interpret it?


No. But even if that were true, wouldn't it be a property?

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 12:51 AM ----------

MMP2506;164291 wrote:
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.



Somehow there is the smell of contradiction that niggles at me here. If there are controlled experiments, and if they give us "a view from nowhere" (objectivity?) and if, therefore they (the controlled experiments) "cannot be done", then how come there are controlled experiments? Something here is not kosher. I mean, either there are controlled experiments, or controlled experiments cannot be done. There cannot be controlled experiments that cannot be done. Or have you lost your faith in logic along with your faith in objectivity?

Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 03:02 am
@Pythagorean,
BrianH wrote:
So, without light, the property of an object is black


Suppose you buy a new red car. Suppose further that your friend comes over to chat, and you mention the new car you just bought. Your friend asks you what color your new car is. Now let us assume your car is in a dark garage, where no light is present. Would you tell your friend that your new car is black? That would seem incredibly strange to me. Don't you think that most people would still acknowledge that their new car was red, despite it being in a dark garage? I do.

I really can't believe there is this much opposition over this very simple stuff. :perplexed:

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 05:35 AM ----------

MMP2506 wrote:
Try reading a science journal published since 1920, the world does not exist without an observer.


Oh really? Care to refer me to a published scientific journal which states explicitly that the world does not exist with out an observer? Thanks.

Quote:
All science has done in the past 400 years is get us back to Aristotle, and yes, put some robots in space.


You weren't actually trying to convince people science hasn't contributed much with this sentence, were you? You say "put some robots in space" so nonchalantly, it's almost funny. Not to mention, this is coming from a guy who drives to work everyday in his 6-cylinder internal combustion engine-driven car, cooks his food in a microwave, and types to online communities on his semiconductor-powered computer. Give me a break.
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164466 wrote:
But, our new findings are progress, aren't they? We did not have them earlier. Isn't that right? In any case, I was not referring only to QM. I was referring to discoveries like antibiotics and DNA. And little things like the theory of relativity, the existence of germs, bits and pieces like that.

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 12:13 AM ----------



No. But even if that were true, wouldn't it be a property?

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 12:51 AM ----------



Somehow there is the smell of contradiction that niggles at me here. If there are controlled experiments, and if they give us "a view from nowhere" (objectivity?) and if, therefore they (the controlled experiments) "cannot be done", then how come there are controlled experiments? Something here is not kosher. I mean, either there are controlled experiments, or controlled experiments cannot be done. There cannot be controlled experiments that cannot be done. Or have you lost your faith in logic along with your faith in objectivity?

Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.


i'm not a big scientist, sorry. I've never heard of epistemology. It's intersting. I beleive Bertrad Russell touched the subject.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:45 am
@BrianH phil,
BrianH;164615 wrote:
i'm not a big scientist, sorry. I've never heard of epistemology. It's intersting. I beleive Bertrad Russell touched the subject.


Well, you certainly don't have to be a scientist to see that science has progressed.
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:50 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164623 wrote:
Well, you certainly don't have to be a scientist to see that science has progressed.


innovations have been found but in some instances we are backtracking. When a future was once seen as machines doing everything for us, it was being realised up until humans decided that it would be better to integrate human interaction with technology and, in a sense, backtrack, making them the new labor tools of our era. I was also referring to the anatomy of the eye and its interaction with light when i replied.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:53 am
@BrianH phil,
BrianH;164626 wrote:
innovations have been found but in some instances we are backtracking. When a future was once seen as machines doing everything for us, it was being realised up until humans decided that it would be better to integrate human interaction with technology and, in a sense, backtrack, making them the new labor tools of our era. I was also referring to the anatomy of the eye and its interaction with light when i replied.


Would you mind answering my question in post #164?
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:01 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164627 wrote:
Would you mind answering my question in post #164?


i would tell them it's red. its simple supposition that has been accepted on a large scale and i'm sure no one here would say it's black or colorless. That would seem ridiculous. I'm going to start doing that though. :cool:
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:03 am
@BrianH phil,
BrianH;164629 wrote:
i would tell them it's red. its simple supposition that has been accepted on a large scale and i'm sure no one here would say it's black or colorless. That would seem ridiculous. I'm going to start doing that though. :cool:


But you just said:

Quote:
So, without light, the property of an object is black


So, if you believed the color of the car was now black, why would you lie to your friend?
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:08 am
@Pythagorean,
It may be useful to disthinquish between primary and secondary properties of an object as Locke suggested. It seems less useful to argue about "what color a car is in the dark". Pretty much an argument about the use of language at this point. Somehow I think philosophy is more than arguments about language, it is more about the concepts which underlie the language. We do not seem to be addressing the concepts, just the words.
There is the
"the car is red in the dark camp"
and
"the car is only red in natural light and when being perceived camp"
No disagreement about the physics, the physiology, or the perception just about the use of language.
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:24 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164631 wrote:
But you just said:



So, if you believed the color of the car was now black, why would you lie to your friend?


What the car's property is and what the car is perceived as by the general human eye are two different things. Even i see it as red in the light. In the dark it's black. Are you going to show your friend the car in the darkest spaces of the world or are you going to turn on a light?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:32 am
@Pythagorean,
BrianH wrote:
What the car's property is and what the car is perceived as by the general human eye are two different things.


They could be two different things. For instance, if you had dark sunglasses on, or you had some sort of vision impairment. But, as we all know, we more than often see things normally.

Quote:
In the dark it's black.


Very interesting. But it's not black, you just admitted so, didn't you? You would tell your friend it's red in the light, but that it's black in the dark? Or would you just tell your friend that the new car you bought was red? Of course you would tell your friend that the car is red, Brian. And this is because that is the property of the car.
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 11:39 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164640 wrote:
They could be two different things. For instance, if you had dark sunglasses on, or you had some sort of vision impairment. But, as we all know, we more than often see things normally.



Very interesting. But it's not black, you just admitted so, didn't you? You would tell your friend it's red in the light, but that it's black in the dark? Or would you just tell your friend that the new car you bought was red? Of course you would tell your friend that the car is red, Brian. And this is because that is the property of the car.


the color of the car as snensed and interpreted by our eyes is red. Again, this is why i assert that to the general human eye, it is red. An insect would see it in ultraviolet hue. If they could speak and learn colors as humans do then they would agree that the car is red though their red is not our red. It is mere sensory and a form of distinction.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 12:22 pm
@Pythagorean,
BrianH wrote:
Again, this is why i assert that to the general human eye, it is red.


I'm glad that you assert that. And you'd be right. And that's what we mean when we say that the color of the car is red. That a normal observer, under normal conditions, would see the car as red. That's all. No need to make this matter any more complicated.
 
BrianH phil
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 12:26 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164652 wrote:
I'm glad that you assert that. And you'd be right. And that's what we mean when we say that the color of the car is red. That a normal observer, under normal conditions, would see the car as red. That's all. No need to make this matter any more complicated.


Sure, that's how i view it. That's how it is.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 12:41 pm
@Pythagorean,
Argument just for the sake of argument. The argument is over. I will continue to argue for my position (one that I really no longer believe in) just to continue arguing. And occupational disease of philosophers, especially those who don't care about the truth, but only whether they have to concede they are wrong. Some call this "love of wisdom".
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 06:53 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164513 wrote:

Oh really? Care to refer me to a published scientific journal which states explicitly that the world does not exist with out an observer? Thanks.


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0607/0607057v2.pdf

I'd like to direct you to the part outlining the dangers on adhering to naive realism specifically. As this very articulate article points out, realism can be used in many different ways, and some are quite functional. What you seem to be claiming is realism, which is that properties such as color are part of the object itself, is not only wrong but rather absurd naive realism. I hope this article puts an end to this discussion once and for all, but I fear it will not be that easy.

Zetherin;164513 wrote:

You weren't actually trying to convince people science hasn't contributed much with this sentence, were you? You say "put some robots in space" so nonchalantly, it's almost funny. Not to mention, this is coming from a guy who drives to work everyday in his 6-cylinder internal combustion engine-driven car, cooks his food in a microwave, and types to online communities on his semiconductor-powered computer. Give me a break.


And what has all this achieved? People are still as unhappy and confused about the way the world works as they ever where, and this fact is shown to me more with every post you make. Im not saying all science is evil and there is no use for science. I just think science needs to be understood as something more than natural science, and I feel that the scientific method is not the absolute means to gaining knowledge. It does have its flaws that people need to be made aware of.

I am very much excited about the possibilities that quantum mechanics is presenting the world with, and I do consider quantum mechanics a scientific en devour. I feel, however, too many view science too narrowly, and it is that narrow view of science that I am criticizing.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 10:01 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;164652 wrote:
That a normal observer, under normal conditions, would see the car as red. That's all. No need to make this matter any more complicated.


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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 10:05 am
@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.


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.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/05/2019 at 06:30:11