• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

I now have an image of someone throwing a baseball at Jonesboy's face while saying "I refute it thus"
 
Lamuella said:
I now have an image of someone throwing a baseball at Jonesboy's face while saying "I refute it thus"
Click to expand...

I was thinking more in the direction of a brick, but ......
.... in the interest of humanity, I will settle for a dead fish.

Hans
 
As inspired by another content free physics thread, I decided to translate the OP into finnish and back to english.

Objects do not put their own physical rajoituksia.Esine is a set of physical boundaries, which we alone have produced upon the materials and space. For example, only separated from the concept of TV entertainment, it stands on carpet.

Even if this doen't ruled out of materiality, it excludes material esineitä.Esine construction of sentient beings.
Click to expand...

Nope. Still doesn't make much sense.
 
MRC_Hans said:

Separated modes of consciousness, in the broadest Cartesian sense, need to be criticized with regard to their validity and range, before they can be used for the purposes of a radical grounding of the transcendental-phenomenological reduction, by reconciling with noematic descriptions;




Hans
Click to expand...


Parts are already identified by the whole. The rest, wherever it came from, was a montage of the standardised misinterpretation of Kant.
 
yy2bggggs said:
We have distinguished the carpet and the TV because they have recognizably distinct properties.

You forget that we don't, and cannot, invent these concepts whole cloth. We have to be able to sense them, directly or indirectly; for such crisply meaningful concepts as televisions and carpet, there needs to be some extremely distinguishable properties of matter as a prerequisite for us to come up with such concepts.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING has recognizably distinct properties. What you have to say is why you chose THESE particular properties. The properties themselves don't choose themselves for you.
 
rajotuksia means restrictions, and esine means object. Not sure why google translate left them untranslated.
 
Jontg said:
Objects and identities are just words we created. Their meanings are the result of consensus--but the things to which we attach these words are not fundamentally changed by the attachment..
Click to expand...

The same mistake, repeated.
WHICH things do you mean? You see, you assume the things are already there, in order to say that they are already there.
 
question: if there are no material objects, and thus jonesboy's computer does not exist, can we just agree that his posts are figments of our collective imagination?
 
Jonesboy said:
EVERYTHING has recognizably distinct properties. What you have to say is why you chose THESE particular properties. The properties themselves don't choose themselves for you.
Click to expand...

I chose them because they are the ones that make a difference for me. An object may have other properties, which I ignore, or are unaware of, because they appear to have no bearing on my relationship to the object.

Hans
 
Jonesboy said:
Materials would be objects that conform or subsist in the frameworks of space and time.
Click to expand...

That would be correct enough not to merit further discussion.

Immaterial is something not relevant.
Click to expand...

According to that definition, your posts and thoughts are not relevant.

- Are you sure you want to go there?

Hans
 
Jonesboy said:
The same mistake, repeated.
WHICH things do you mean? You see, you assume the things are already there, in order to say that they are already there.
Click to expand...

That objects exist regardless of our perception of them is an axiom of materialism. As far as it can be tested, it has been shown to be true.

Hans
 
Jonesboy said:
EVERYTHING has recognizably distinct properties.
Click to expand...
No, objects having recognizably distinct properties does not come for free. You are probably missing that I'm describing objects, and that I use the term "recognizably".

Suppose we have 10 glasses of water. I take 3 of those glasses and define it as "foo water". But I don't tell you which 3 glasses are foo water.

Your task is to pick out which 3 glasses are foo water, versus which 7 are not foo water.

Compare that to this situation. We have something I call a carpet, and something I call a television, in a room. We shut the room, soundproof it, surround it with a Faraday cage, and so on, and I just rearrange the room to my heart's content. Then we open the room and let another person in. Her task is to identify which one is the carpet, and which one is the television.

Do you understand?
What you have to say is why you chose THESE particular properties. The properties themselves don't choose themselves for you.
Click to expand...
No. I do not have to say why I chose those particular properties. Why I chose a particular set of properties is entirely irrelevant; if there even are particular properties that are different for the television than there are for the carpet, then it follows that a television is not the same as the carpet.

The fact that we can perform experiments such as the second one I listed above, and have a person correctly identify the carpet and the television in nearly 100% of the cases, means that there are recognizably distinct properties, which necessarily means there are distinct properties.
 
Last edited:
Or let's use this example, since it has more to do with the borders of the objects per se.

My neighbor Sue is about to cook, and finds herself short two cups of sugar, so she goes over to my house when I'm not home. A roommate of mine gives her a cup of sugar. Sue then goes to her neighbor on the other side--Harriet--and requests another cup of sugar. Harriet obliges.

Sue pours the two cups of sugar into a mixing bowl and starts prepping her recipe. The two cups from each neighbor she adds to a pile of cups in her kitchen sink, with the intention of washing them before returning.

Meanwhile I come home and am upset that my favorite cup has been loaned out. So I go to Sue's house and ask her to return my cup. Sue says, "Sure, it's in the kitchen sink", and I go to the sink, grab my cup, and am on my way.

Now for ending number two...

I come home and am upset that my favorite cup of sugar has been loaned out (let's say something silly; that cup of sugar was given to me by my late grandmother before she died, so it has sentimental value to me). So I go to Sue's house and ask her to give me back my cup of sugar. Sue says, "Sure, it's in the mixing bowl", and to my horror I see it is lumped in with Harriet's sugar. It is now impossible for me to identify which cup of sugar was loaned to me by my late grandmother, and which was simply Harriet's sugar.

My favorite cup has recognizably distinct properties from Harriet's cup or most other cups, as demonstrated by the fact that I can pick it out of a pile of cups. But my favorite cup of sugar does not have recognizably distinct properties from any other cup of sugar, once it is combined into a pile.

The carpet and the television, all in a "pile", is more like the former situation. It's easy for any person to separate the television from the carpet, picking out the television from the objects in the pile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom