There are no material objects

[Jonesboy]

Objects do not set their own physical limits. An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space. For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

While this doen't rule out materiality, it rules out material objects. An object is a construction of sentient creatures.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Objects do not set their own physical limits. An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space. For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

While this doen't rule out materiality, it rules out material objects. An object is a construction of sentient creatures.

Don't worry, this is all a dream, you are infact a pulsing shade of blue in a churning maelstrom of energy.


Now if we all ignore you do you cease to exist?

 

[Dancing David]

Um, it doesn't matter what the ontology is, objects behave as they do. In fact an ideal ontology is impossible to distinguish from a material one. We may all be godthought or butterfly dreams.

Funny thing however, whatever the ontology, things behave as though they are material.

If you can't distinguish the objects commonly labelled as 'carpets' from 'TVs', well perhaps you should repeat kindergarten....

 

[Marduk]

umm, no, you are talking about non material objects, for instance when my TV is not displaying entertainment it is still distinguishable from the carpet

so, non material things
like for instance your ability to create a thread with an actual point, those sort of things don't exist

 

[Tomtomkent]

Don't worry. Jonesboy doesn't exist. He is a really bad Turin test sent to annoy us. When he goes to bed at night he forgets what order his atoms are meant to be in.

He is infact cheesecake.


See. We can all do that "no point" thing...

 

[Jonesboy]

Um, it doesn't matter what the ontology is, objects behave as they do. In fact an ideal ontology is impossible to distinguish from a material one. We may all be godthought or butterfly dreams.

Funny thing however, whatever the ontology, things behave as though they are material.

If you can't distinguish the objects commonly labelled as 'carpets' from 'TVs', well perhaps you should repeat kindergarten....

I can distinguish a carpet from a TV but only because I know about entertainment. Without that human value, there is no TV.

 

[yog_sothoth]

I for, one, do not exist. This post is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Jonesboy]

umm, no, you are talking about non material objects, for instance when my TV is not displaying entertainment it is still distinguishable from the carpet

so, non material things
like for instance your ability to create a thread with an actual point, those sort of things don't exist

No. Non material objects are things like colours and sounds. I am talking about the physical limits of objects and how these are NOT set by material concerns.

 

[Jonesboy]

I for, one, do not exist. This post is a figment of your imagination.

I am not saying that the TV is not material. I am saying that it cannot be identified as a TV on materoial considerations alone. We need concepts like entertainment.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. Non material objects are things like colours and sounds. I am talking about the physical limits of objects and how these are NOT set by material concerns.

Oh, so you are just wrong about the television and carpet in terms of the physical dimensions, chemical components, atomic structure and... well.. everything. Yes, there is a vast difference between the two that has nothing to do with function.

This is not science. Or philosophy, it is student prat trying to sound smarter than anybody who "doesn't get him".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

Not only you are dead wrong about that aspect being the only thing that differentiates those two objects, but what if I had a carpet that amused me as much as my Tv? Or if I had a Tv that I found equally as much tedious as my carpet?

 

[Jonesboy]

Not only you are dead wrong about that aspect being the only thing that differentiates those two objects, but what if I had a carpet that amused me as much as my Tv? Or if I had a Tv that I found equally as much tedious as my carpet?

Yes, I know. WE need some concept to set the physical limits.

 

[Comrade Raptor]

I can distinguish a carpet from a TV but only because I know about entertainment. Without that human value, there is no TV.

So if you had never seen the device on, nor watched a program, you would only see carpet?

You would not notice the rectangle-shaped thing?

So if you go to a hospital, or lab, and there are all kinds of devices that you don't know what purpose they serve - you cannot distinguish them? They're immaterial? Ghosts?

Watch out for The Phantom Centrifuge, he's a sneaky one.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I am not saying that the TV is not material. I am saying that it cannot be identified as a TV on materoial considerations alone. We need concepts like entertainment.

But the function of a television is not entertainment. It is to represent electromagnetic signals in a visual format through light producing media. With out the concept of entertainment there is still a function.

Really, you can't even be pointless with out being wrong?

 

[punshhh]

Objects do not set their own physical limits. An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space. For example, only the concept of entertainment distinguishes a TV from the carpet it stands on.

While this doen't rule out materiality, it rules out material objects. An object is a construction of sentient creatures.

I agree that all things can be viewed as entities.

 

[Agatha]

It would probably be a bad idea to drop your TV on your foot. It would probably be less of a problem if you dropped the carpet on your foot.

 

[Jonesboy]

So if you had never seen the device on, nor watched a program, you would only see carpet?

You would not notice the rectangle-shaped thing?

So if you go to a hospital, or lab, and there are all kinds of devices that you don't know what purpose they serve - you cannot distinguish them? They're immaterial? Ghosts?

Watch out for The Phantom Centrifuge, he's a sneaky one.

Yes, for many creatures there is just a rectangle that gets in the way. Or for termites, it could be food, or for a murderer it could be the nearest dangerous object to hand.

There is no material property called TV.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Objects do not set their own physical limits

No, their physical dimensions do that.

 

[Comrade Raptor]

Yes, for many creatures there is just a rectangle that gets in the way. Or for termites, it could be food, or for a murderer it could be the nearest dangerous object to hand.

There is no material property called TV.

So if you don't call a tree a tree, then there is no tree?

This is silly. Whether you call it a tree, a trosslossloss, a farnkfarnk, or nothing at all it still exists, it is still material. It has form, shape, substance, and matter.

Even if you are not present to define it. Even if nobody is present to define it.

So, you are wrong.

 

[yog_sothoth]

I am not saying that the TV is not material. I am saying that it cannot be identified as a TV on materoial considerations alone. We need concepts like entertainment.

You seem to need them. Perhaps you should get over that.