• 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

Craig4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
.
I prefer coffee.
And use a coaster!!!!!!!
 
Jonesboy said:
There is no material property called TV.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused by your series of posts in this thread. Are we discussing properties or things/objects?

No one argues that there are TV atoms that comprise something that we call a television.

Your basic point seems be pretty self-evident -- we define objects in terms of their function. Objects assume functions based on the way that we use/define them.

For instance, I can use a rock as a table while hiking in the woods, but that does not mean that the rock suddenly changed form or became something different. It's function, for me, changed in my mind; but the physical object is still the physical object with no change whatsoever.

At one point you called color a non-material 'thing'. That is simply false. Color is not, properly speaking, a 'thing'; it is an interaction between light and the nervous system with the concept being a construction of prior experiences, language use within a language community, activation of a subset of receptors, etc. All of that is physical, though it is not a 'thing' but an action occurring within a nervous system as a result of that nervous system interacting with a physical substance known as a photon.
 
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...
But that does not make it indistinguishable from the carpet, or from other objects. The TV, whether or not we know what it is or what it is for, or what to call it, is an object distinct from those around it. Even if we look at objects as undifferentiated, such that the TV and carpet are just two things in the sea of things, and even if we lack the perception or the language to differentiate them, they are still not the same thing. I brought them into the room at different times from different places. Even if they were to me as functionless and indistinguishable as the pieces of gravel in the driveway they would exist as separate objects.
 
I just got back home after a gig. I played guitar,fiddle and mandolin. They felt like material objects to me.
 
Originally Posted by Jonesboy View Post
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...


Comrade Raptor said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is a tree, but a tree 'is so' by its sentience. There is no material property that is a tree.
 
Originally Posted by Jonesboy View Post
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.
Click to expand...


Hang on. It looks like you WANT the TV to be real.
 
I Ratant said:
.
The tv exists as a tv without it being powered up, or even removed from the box the manufacturer shipped it in.
Looking for entertainment on tv, now THAT'S a challenge!
Click to expand...

Yes, but only because YOU have set the physical limits that you want them to be.
 
Jonesboy said:
That's easily answered. It's a beginners question.
Click to expand...


Which for some reason was so easy that it remained unanswered.


Why a four year old child could understand this.

Run out and get me a four year old child, I can't make heads or tails out of it.

Groucho Marx​
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
Ok, I know people have been implying this the whole time, but let's just be blunt here:

Your threads are weird as hell.

I know I could probably come up with the same sort of comments if I were sufficiently high, but you are likely sober, and that fact alone makes it borderline worrying.

Let me share something with you: The first time I tried salvia, it was the most frightening experience of my life. It gave me first-person view of falling through my own ego, seeing reality fold in on itself, being unable to distinguish myself from seams in reality, feeling my sense of self expand indefinitely through time and space in a chaotic pattern -- I assure you, it was one of the most intricate horrors I've ever seen, so much that I had nightmares about it for months, and my head bristling with wordless abstract thoughts not unlike the ones you've described.

The key here is understanding that those thoughts don't mean anything. If you dwell on them or try to make sense of them, you're going to find yourself plagued by an uncanny feeling of derealization.

Try thinking about more cheerful things. Have you seen, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? Have you ever tried to juggle with your feet?
Click to expand...

I studied with Stan Grof, the "Godfather" of LSD. I got certified as a facilitator on his non-drug technique and have run workshops. I can talk about this stuff.
 
citizenzen said:
Which for some reason was so easy that it remained unanswered.


Why a four year old child could understand this.

Run out and get me a four year old child, I can't make heads or tails out of it.

Groucho Marx​
Click to expand...

It's easy. Sounds are not vibrations in the air. Sounds are a non-material perception of vibrations in the air. They have no material or spatial presence, such as a "sound IN the wood". There was no sound in the forest from the falling tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom