Simple question: What is an object?

[plumjam]

Well, I haven't read all the thread, but I'd say an object is something like: an aspect of consciousness with a high degree of perceptual commonality (perception not being confined to the 5 senses)
Thus there can be, and are, objects of a logical, mathematical, moral, aesthetic, spiritual..etc.. nature.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, if you allow "change" and even "pattern" to have ontological status, distinct from "matter", you avoid dualism, I think: matter is still the basic "stuff", but different patterns of matter, different changes in pattern, different patterns of change, complex relationships between any and all, might give rise to the complexity we observe.

Indeed. Still, my problem is not that patterns have a clear ontological status, but that there are more patterns than those in which we focus our attention. For instance, our humanity (read need for survival) conditions which patterns are relevant for us and which are not.

So, for instance, I believe the whole categorization about what an object is (ontologically speaking) is contaminated with these anthropocentric assumptions (it is solid, occupies space, has a color, etc). It can be argued that objects are in constant flux with their surroundings, so there is not a clear boundary to draw a line between what we call "this object" and we call "other objects".

A way to do this is to take out time (as it appears to us) from the equation, for example, leaving a camera with a time of 40 sec to capture a picture will show a very different shape of some objects (those which move in the scene). Why would our predetermined time window (about 20msec IIRC) be preferred over a 40 second one to define the shape of moving objects?

From an "objective" POV, yes. Scientific instruments register interactions between objects, and scientists simply read/copy what the instruments register (unless their unaided senses suffice).

Agreed, but as the example above, we register only some particular, isolated variables. Its like the example about what is an elephant. Experiments are designed to show us a particular face, but that face reflects us.

To put it in other words, I worked at a newspaper years ago, they used to say that journalism was about stating facts and not give interpretations (fools). A photograph was brought as an example of a tool to put just the fact, without "contaminating it" with opinions. Thing is, a photograph implies the particular POV of the photographer... another way to say it; the photographer is also in the picture, "contaminating it".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, I haven't read all the thread, but I'd say an object is something like: an aspect of consciousness with a high degree of perceptual commonality (perception not being confined to the 5 senses)
Thus there can be, and are, objects of a logical, mathematical, moral, aesthetic, spiritual..etc.. nature.

Yes there are many kind of objects. It calls my attention that you say it is "an aspect of consciousness", a couple of questions arise: are they external to consciousness? if they are not, how can we reach consensus?

 

[plumjam]

Yes there are many kind of objects. It calls my attention that you say it is "an aspect of consciousness", a couple of questions arise: are they external to consciousness?

As far as my beliefs are concerned nothing is external to consciousness.
And even if there were 'things' external to consciousness then they could never, by definition, be known to be so.

if they are not, how can we reach consensus?

we can reach consensus on objects via commonality of perception then description.
I think you may be driving at something else there. To which my answer would be that when no individual conscious being is perceiving a particular object, that object does not 'flip into non-being', because all aspects of reality are simultaneously parts of (made of, if you like) a universal omniscient consciousness.
When, as individuals, we perceive that particular object, we are perceiving that particular aspect of the universal consciousness.

Phew, time for a beer

 

[Robin]

Yes there are many kind of objects. It calls my attention that you say it is "an aspect of consciousness", a couple of questions arise: are they external to consciousness? if they are not, how can we reach consensus?

Measurement.

 

[Robin]

I think you may be driving at something else there. To which my answer would be that when no individual conscious being is perceiving a particular object, that object does not 'flip into non-being', because all aspects of reality are simultaneously parts of (made of, if you like) a universal omniscient consciousness.
When, as individuals, we perceive that particular object, we are perceiving that particular aspect of the universal consciousness.

Phew, time for a beer

Except that you could simplify the theory by losing the universal omniscient consciousness part.

What need do we have of that hypothesis, what does it explain?

 

[plumjam]

Measurement.

Yes, which as I said, is a commonality of perception then description. Not all measurements can occur, due to the nature of the object they are measuring, via the 5 senses.

 

[Robin]

Yes, which as I said, is a commonality of perception then description. Not all measurements can occur, due to the nature of the object they are measuring, via the 5 senses.

Unless you count a mathematical proof as measurement then measurement is, by definition, an operation on sense data.

 

[bpesta22]

in vision, an object is a space surrounded by contours.

 

[plumjam]

Except that you could simplify the theory by losing the universal omniscient consciousness part.

What need do we have of that hypothesis, what does it explain?

Because then you'd be faced with the prospect of things only existing when they were being perceived by individual consciousnesses. So that when you go out for the night your bedroom completely disappears from existence, then reappears when you struggle in, drunk. People, rightly IMO, see this as nonsensical. Things continue in their existence even when I or my friends are not constantly watching them (though it would by definition be impossible to prove otherwise).
How, then, would losing the universal omniscient consciousness part be simplifying anything? On the contrary it would be complicating things billion-fold.

 

[Robin]

Unless you count a mathematical proof as measurement then measurement is, by definition, an operation on sense data.

I should add that not all sense data comes from the 5 senses.

 

[plumjam]

Unless you count a mathematical proof as measurement then measurement is, by definition, an operation on sense data.

A mathematical proof is perceived as true or untrue (I'm not a mathematician) not via the senses, but via some other perception.. call it what you like.
A trained mathematician could lose all his 5 senses and still ponder on mathematical realities. Granted, he would have had to live for a while with senses to get out of nappies, and learn a bit from maths teachers via the senses, but after that...hey... freedom

 

[Robin]

Because then you'd be faced with the prospect of things only existing when they were being perceived by individual consciousnesses. So that when you go out for the night your bedroom completely disappears from existence, then reappears when you struggle in, drunk. People, rightly IMO, see this as nonsensical.

Yes they do, they take the commonsense view that these things exist outside of consciousness.

Things continue in their existence even when I or my friends are not constantly watching them (though it would by definition be impossible to prove otherwise).

Again, measurement.

How, then, would losing the universal omniscient consciousness part be simplifying anything? On the contrary it would be complicating things billion-fold.

The complexity your universal omniscient mind adds is way, way greater than a billionfold.

The complexity required to explain my mind would be more than adequate to explain the unperceived tree. After all the human mind is more complicated than a tree.

Why do you see it as necessary for the tree to be re-percieved by a vastly complex mechanism after I am done perceiving it? Why could it not simply be unperceived?

 

[Robin]

A mathematical proof is perceived as true or untrue (I'm not a mathematician) not via the senses, but via some other perception.. call it what you like.
A trained mathematician could lose all his 5 senses and still ponder on mathematical realities. Granted, he would have had to live for a while with senses to get out of nappies, and learn a bit from maths teachers via the senses, but after that...hey... freedom

So do you consider a mathematical proof to be a measurement?

 

[Robin]

A mathematical proof is perceived as true or untrue (I'm not a mathematician) not via the senses, but via some other perception.. call it what you like.

And by the way a mathematical theorem is said to be true or untrue because a certain operation on the symbols yields a certain result. Manipulating the symbols to gain this result requires no extra type of perception beyond that needed to perceive the symbols in the first place.

 

[plumjam]

Yes they do, they take the commonsense view that these things exist outside of consciousness.

And you, presumably, take the currently scientifically ridiculed view that that which is not verifiable, or at least cannot be falsified, has no claim to truth.

Again, measurement.

Robin, please realise that measurement is only possible within consciousness.

The complexity your universal omniscient mind adds is way, way greater than a billionfold.

How so? It would be adding just one entity to reality, rather than the billions of new entities per second, of your outlook.

Why do you see it as necessary for the tree to be re-percieved by a vastly complex mechanism after I am done perceiving it? Why could it not simply be unperceived?

Well, now are you admitting that all kinds of unperceived things could exist? Fairies, goblins, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters?
Dawkins would frown, Randi would curmudgeon, Hitchens would flick his hair and order another.

 

[plumjam]

And by the way a mathematical theorem is said to be true or untrue because a certain operation on the symbols yields a certain result. Manipulating the symbols to gain this result requires no extra type of perception beyond that needed to perceive the symbols in the first place.

A wide-eyed trout could perceive the symbols in the first place. I doubt you'd get much of mathematical value out of it. So there's clearly something else going on.

 

[Robin]

And you, presumably, take the currently scientifically ridiculed view that that which is not verifiable, or at least cannot be falsified, has no claim to truth.

Since I have said nothing even remotely like that I wonder why you should say so.

Please try limit the discussion to things that I actually say

Robin, please realise that measurement is only possible within consciousness.

Nonsense, I can build a non-conscious device that can measure things.

How so? It would be adding just one entity to reality, rather than the billions of new entities per second, of your outlook.

Can you explain this rather absurd statement.

I have simply said that things can exist unperceived. How you get from this to "billions of new entities per second" is anybody's guess.

No, really, explain this absurd non-sequitur.

Well, now are you admitting that all kinds of unperceived things could exist? Fairies, goblins, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters?
Dawkins would frown, Randi would curmudgeon, Hitchens would flick his hair and order another.

I am not sure what those gentlemen have to do with the question or why I should care.

But if you suggested to them that there are stars that we are unable to perceive they would answer "Of course there are". If you suggested to them that the sun existed before anything came along to to perceive it they would answer "of course it did".

So I don't know where you get this odd idea that Dawkins, Randi and Hitchens are Subjective Idealists. In fact the whole tone of your post is decidedly bizarre.

As for faeries, hobgoblins, gods, unicorns, angels and flying spaghetti monsters, well they could exist.

It is just very, very, very ... very unlikely.

 

[roger]

Object is a vague English word that has obvious meaning and application when used informally, but when tortured philosophically/scientifically really doesn't mean too much.

I suspect that statement sounds like I'm being facile, but I think it is a very sound statement. It's much like trying to identify when squirrel species x becomes squirrel species y. We can identify the x, and y, but there is no clear transition. That does not make the word species meaningless, it does mean that the word needs to be reserved for macro situations and recognize where we are getting to the point where we are squabbling about the meaning of a word instead of learning about squirrels.

 

[SimonD]

According to Led Zep - this is it