Simple question: What is an object?

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Say, a chair is an instance of the class (objects with this shape that serves this purpose). Thats a good definition. Now, will this lead to some form of platonism? to put in in another words, if humanity ceased to exist, the class would disappear? what about the instance?
Click to expand...

I neither know nor care what would happen if humanity ceased to exist.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I'm dizzy :p ok lets be more specific. Say a virus kills every human on the planet in one week from now. In two weeks, would the chairs still be chairs?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the word would no longer be of importance, no more so than the words for what they were made of or how they were produced -unless another sentient race found and studied/wished to study them. Words are fun, but they are not requisite for existence - they are necessary only for certain forms of communication.

Objects are not the words that describe them although words may describe a use for them not apparent in their form/structure/materials.
 
volatile said:
After what happened last time, do you think we really need another meandering and slightly mendacious descent into your solipsistic take on transcendental idealism?
Click to expand...

You still have that impression huh? You didn't get that my stance is Zero solipsism and its Zero idealism. Now, have you noticed that here I'm asking to learn from your points of view? I'm not offering discussion nor attempting to state what I believe.

Now, you really need to go and read the thread you are talking about, because you missed my view. :p Oh, and please stop the personal attack.
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
... Words are fun, but they are not requisite for existence - they are necessary only for certain forms of communication.

Objects are not the words that describe them although words may describe a use for them not apparent in their form/structure/materials.
Click to expand...

So, what an object has that makes it an object, this is (more or less), what is its nature before we name it. For instance, I believe you would say that it "exists", because of the first sentence I quoted.
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
You still have that impression huh? You didn't get that my stance is Zero solipsism and its Zero idealism. Now, have you noticed that here I'm asking to learn from your points of view? I'm not offering discussion nor attempting to state what I believe.

Now, you really need to go and read the thread you are talking about, because you missed my view. :p Oh, and please stop the ad hominems.
Click to expand...

Hence the accusation of mendacity.
 
No personal attack, I just get the impression from quotes like "Thanks, lets see where this little experiment can lead us" that you're content to (mendaciously, as Quixote noticed) re-tread old ground.

We had a noisy and rather ill-tempered thread on this exact topic not so long ago, so it baffles me slightly why, when it's manifest you have not changed your position you want to bring the same unconvincing arguments to the table yet again - " if humanity ceased to exist, the class would disappear?", "Now, if the objectivity is a "consensus of subjectivities" would this imply that we are not describing the object, but our interaction?", "Would all of them would still be "objects of perception?"".

In other words - we've done this. We don't need to do it again.
 
I Ratant said:
What is the object of this discussion?
Click to expand...
That's philosophical semantics not science. Semantics is word games and can be entertaining but it also leads to philosophy and religion (both assumptions that because we can attach names to concepts that makes them real).
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
So, what an object has that makes it an object, this is (more or less), what is its nature before we name it. For instance, I believe you would say that it "exists", because of the first sentence I quoted.
Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating myself, an object is something made of matter which has mass and takes up space. If it has no mass and takes up no space it is not matter and therefore is not an object. Any other definition of an object may have some descriptive or communicative pupose but does not match reality otherwise and is merely semantic.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Say, a chair is an instance of the class (objects with this shape that serves this purpose). Thats a good definition. Now, will this lead to some form of platonism? to put in in another words, if humanity ceased to exist, the class would disappear? what about the instance?
Click to expand...

No - it will lead to a running computer program if implemented correctly. You've heard of Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)), right? It came somewhat before objects were invented and determined to be useful. The instance disappears when it goes out of scope usually; an object is abstract, and can exist anywhere.

In answer to your question about humanity, another question: does a computer beep if no one is around to hear it?
 
fuelair said:
At the risk of repeating myself, an object is something made of matter which has mass and takes up space. If it has no mass and takes up no space it is not matter and therefore is not an object. Any other definition of an object may have some descriptive or communicative pupose but does not match reality otherwise and is merely semantic.
Click to expand...

There's another two threads on this which might make things a little clearer... You might be able to get a broader sense of the background of why this question is being asked in the first place.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106107
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107195
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
... Could be semantics, because it is not the same to talk about a number and a chair. Oh well, I think some people would argue that numbers are objective in the same sense a chair is.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you're after now. Yes, sematics. I was trying to talk about any possible object, you meant the physical object.

Would all of them would still be "objects of perception"? like my last answer, can a number exist without being perceived/thought about? Is a friendship more than the feelings of two individuals?
Click to expand...

Well... some numbers might be out there in "analog" form, as undiscovered objects (natural ratios, etc).
"Friendship" is the feelings, plus the relationship, and the concept, and the behavior, etc.
But neither of these is a physical object. They are higher level descriptions of physical objects, of changes, or descriptions of descriptions.

This is very interesting, thanks for the input. Worth a careful analysis.
Yes, I do believe language play a predominant paper in here. Would you state that the separation is arbitrary? or absolute? (between subjects and objects).
Click to expand...

For what you're concerned with, absolute I think. Physical objects are ultimate bits of matter or assemblies of smaller physical objects. Subjects are a type of object: beings which can experience other objects.

Now, if the objectivity is a "consensus of subjectivities" would this imply that we are not describing the object, but our interaction? ...
Click to expand...

Except that the care taken by the protocols of science, observer independence, renders our interactions the same, so we can ignore them. We bypass our interaction, our phenomenological limitations, by repeating experiments under controlled conditions, to eliminate variability. Since the interaction is negligible, you are in effect describing the object, or rather the scientific properties of the object.

Science is a special kind of consensus: by definition universal and precise. All that matters is one's ability to follow instructions and record instrument readings. Once the experiment has been repeated enough times within required precision, it is a scientific fact: objective (because repeatable by anyone in theory), not subjective experience and interpretation.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
There's another two threads on this which might make things a little clearer... You might be able to get a broader sense of the background of why this question is being asked in the first place.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106107
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107195
Click to expand...

Misleading, all I want here is to understand what others think about this. If I will be accused of having a "hidden agenda" because I have my own views then I'm helpless. :(

I believe we don't need a thousand posts of flame war to understand that I'm not attempting to introduce any woo here, that in the end, my views are so close to materialists ones that it is difficult to spot the difference.
 
blobru said:
For what you're concerned with, absolute I think. Physical objects are ultimate bits of matter or assemblies of smaller physical objects. Subjects are a type of object: beings which can experience other objects.
Click to expand...

Yes, still this represents a problem for me, "the objects which experience". I believe it introduces a form of dualism, this is why I asked about if the separation would be absolute or arbitrary. Absolute would represent distinct objects with clear ontological status, arbitrary would mean a universe of interactions, no separation.

blobru said:
Science is a special kind of consensus: by definition universal and precise. All that matters is one's ability to follow instructions and record instrument readings. Once the experiment has been repeated enough times within required precision, it is a scientific fact: objective (because repeatable by anyone in theory), not subjective experience and interpretation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and the best we have. But it is my belief that here we are talking about facts and descriptions from a POV, not necessarily about objective interactions between objects. I can be wrong of course.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Yes, still this represents a problem for me, "the objects which experience". I believe it introduces a form of dualism, this is why I asked about if the separation would be absolute or arbitrary. Absolute would represent distinct objects with clear ontological status, arbitrary would mean a universe of interactions, no separation.
Click to expand...


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.

'Course metaphysics is a little bit iffy, eh? :)

Agreed, and the best we have. But it is my belief that here we are talking about facts and descriptions from a POV, not necessarily about objective interactions between objects. I can be wrong of course.
Click to expand...


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).
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
To keep things under control, please use this format:

"An object is:

1) a separate entity
2) it existence is independent of observers
3) has different characteristics which are not affected by observers

and so on... "

Change the list with what you believe, of course. I used what I think is the "normal" folk language definition (please do not use dictionaries, just what YOU think an object is).

Thanks, lets see where this little experiment can lead us.
Click to expand...
Anything that has a description covering property and/or behaviour that is verifiable by independent observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom