• 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

Bram Kaandorp said:
But without language or a human observer, the TV is very similar to a table.
Click to expand...

It is just as similar to a table in a roomful of people as it is on a planet devoid of life.

Bram Kaandorp said:
In other words: If we take away all that is "us" (if we leave the room, so to speak), then the objects in the room have no meaning.
Click to expand...

The objects themselves never had any meaning anyway.

Bram Kaandorp said:
Whilst this is technically true, (since, what use does a TV have if there is nobody to use it), it still doesn't change the fact that it's a TV.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Well no thanks to anyone, I came home with an end table. I tell you what, it sure the heck isn't very entertaining.
 
Jonesboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have only two options here. The first is that you are joking. Stating in detail the second would result in something between an infraction and being banned. So I shan't
 
Jonesboy said:
Objects do not set their own physical limits ...
Click to expand...


This is why I love Buddhism.

Buddhism has a wonderful tradition of answering the question, "Isn't everything nothingness and life just an illusion," with a solid and sobering sock to the nose.

Sounds like Jonesboy is in need of one.
 
Jonesboy said:
I can distinguish a carpet from a TV but only because I know about entertainment. Without that human value, there is no TV.
Click to expand...

Jonesboy said:
Yes, I know. WE need some concept to set the physical limits.
Click to expand...


Jonesboy,

There is an OBJECTIVE REALITY regardless what you think or don't and despite you existing or not.

RATIONALITY is a mark of how close you can approximate reality with your inner constructs about it.

The closer you approximate reality the better your ability to survive would be and thus the more you are likely to reproduce and pass on the genes that afforded you to better approximate reality.

The next generation then can either be more or less rational than your.


Consider this scenario:
You are sick and need an operation. They anesthetize you and operate on you. Since you are asleep according to your theory nothing can happen since nothing then exists while you are asleep.

However when you wake up, there is pain and a cut and you have to take pain killers to stop all the pain and antibiotics to stop an infection.

According to your philosophy none of this should be happening and especially infections since you cannot even see the bacteria awake or asleep.​

If things only take on material existence when people know about them...how did most of Europe get wiped out by a plague virus that no one on earth even knew it existed?

What about the American Natives and Small Pox?

For that matter...where did the Conquistadores materialize from if the Natives never knew there were people or a world outside theirs.

Likewise...how did the Americas come into existence if Columbus did not even know they existed....are we in China right now?

Can you see how meaningless your ideas are.

Remember.....there is an OBJECTIVE reality out there outside your brain.

You can elect to try and approximate to it as closely as you can or you can elect to go around DELUDED...it is up to you....just thank your lucky stars that you have the luxury to think the way you do and still survive.... other people have to interact with reality so as to survive.
 
Last edited:
Jonesboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dear Abby: I recently embraced postmodernism. Since I don't find TV very entertaining it morphed into a carpet but I cut my feet walking on it. Seeking entertainment I groped for something to plug in but the carpet caught fire. What should I do next?

signed: Mad Ludwig II
 
bruto said:
Dear Abby: I recently embraced postmodernism. Since I don't find TV very entertaining it morphed into a carpet but I cut my feet walking on it. Seeking entertainment I groped for something to plug in but the carpet caught fire. What should I do next?

signed: Mad Ludwig II
Click to expand...

Dear Luddite,

Put out the fire, put on your shoes, and check your bedside table. The medications you need are in the top drawer.

Abby
 
Jonesboy said:
An object is a set of physical limits that we alone have drawn upon materials and space.
Click to expand...
"we alone" is an exaggeration

What we perceive as objects are mostly groups of atoms that cling together permanently, and move together in unison. Nearly any possible intelligent creature would perceive the objects similarly as we do: what clings together and moves together, related to what is around it, is a separate object.
 
Okay, I have a beer. I pour it in a glass. I set it on the table. The table supports the beer. I can think or define the table anyway I like. It still supports the beer. My definitions do not impact the table. An object is simply defined by what it does. Any further thought on that topic is pointless.
 
Jonesboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, welcome to the JREF where we seem to already know what labels are. So maybe you should join the conversation. These issues have been many sources of ongoing conversations that longest running of which are the 'nature of mathematics' and the nature of 'consciousness'.

I beleive that language takes meaning only by idiomatic self reference to objects and behaviors between communicants.

However since both material and ideal ontologies are identical, it makes no difference what the basis of what 'shared reality is'.
 
Last edited:
citizenzen said:
This is why I love Buddhism.

Buddhism has a wonderful tradition of answering the question, "Isn't everything nothingness and life just an illusion," with a solid and sobering sock to the nose.

Sounds like Jonesboy is in need of one.
Click to expand...
.
I'll donate one of my socks after my bike ride this morning...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom