There are no material objects

[Jonesboy]

Jonesboy, this is a serious question.... Why are you posting this kind of thing here, on a skeptical forum?

Why aren't you posting this kind of stuff on a New Age forum?

I mean, it's a bit like going to a vegetarian forum and asking what folks think about your latest pulled pork recipe.

These aren't rhetorical questions, I really want to know what you think you're going to get out of this.

Are you trying to convince skeptics to stop being skeptical? Are you hoping to have your ideas debunked?

Or what?

It's not New Age. Say it for what it is. A skepticism of Science.

I am a scientist, and I am a philosopher, and I say this - range your skepticism over everything that culture and learning has to offer you. Today my skepticism is directed at science, tomorrow it will be directed at religion.

 

[Jonesboy]

Sorry to be crude, but Ted Bundy's victims still died when he bludgeoned them in their sleep. This would not have happened if the object he used to kill them were a construction of sentient creatures. Only the ones he murdered while they were awake would have died.

oh yes I know. But then, as you say, it is creatures that are sentient.

 

[Jonesboy]

There are material things called TVs.

You can prove this to yourself by walking into an electronics store. You will see lots of objects designed to display motion pictures with sound, and they will have the terms "TV" and "television" associated with them, via signage, packaging, and spoken reference.

That's all that's necessary to make it true that there are material things called TVs.

The fact that termites don't call them TVs, and are even incapable of conceiving of a television, doesn't change the fact that there are indeed things called TVs.

This is like claiming that because blind people have no concept of color, the concept of color must be useless.

You seem to be conflating language with its referents.

We call them TV's just as we call certain shapes interesting. And useful.

 

[Jonesboy]

But without language or a human observer, the TV is very similar to a table.

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.

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.

Jonesboy really needs to work on his skills. He is still in the ignore-the-thread stage, where others, like someone else who was in the thread, has progressed to the just-type-anything-to-keep-the-illusion-of-knowing-what-to-say stage.

Hi. Lost for words. Me that is. Not you. YOu started off well. Pink cheeks and rosy complexion.

 

[citizenzen]

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.

If that were the case, there'd be no measurable effect. You don't think a pine needle would quiver or a branch would shake from these vibrations?

I think they would.

Without ears, one might feel the vibrations. With ears, one hears the sound.

 

[Leumas]

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.

If you notice he made no reference to any sounds.....he said

What if a tree fell in the woods and nobody else was around when it landed on your head, would it still be immaterial? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Jonesboy]

I miss Interesting Ian.

You want interesting? I am interesting. I drink blood from the skulls of my enemies, and sup well upon their brains. I don't think "Ian" could accomodate that.

 

[citizenzen]

You want interesting? I am interesting. I drink blood from the skulls of my enemies, and sup well upon their brains. I don't think "Ian" could accomodate that.

Have you been playing too much D&D again?

 

[Jonesboy]

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

I've reported you for inractions 0 and 12 and making threats.

 

[Leumas]

Have you been playing too much D&D again?

 

[Jonesboy]

Have you been playing too much D&D again?

Too much D&D you said. Ha!
gReat joke.
What's D&D?

 

[Jonesboy]

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.

As I said, I am not saying that there is no material world. I am saying that the way we carve it up is down to us. And the way we carve it up is called objects.

 

[Jonesboy]

If that were the case, there'd be no measurable effect. You don't think a pine needle would quiver or a branch would shake from these vibrations?

I think they would.

Without ears, one might feel the vibrations. With ears, one hears the sound.

Yes, I agree. But the quivering is physical. The sound is a non-physical perception and can't be found anywhere.

 

[Jonesboy]

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

Rice pudding and nutmeg, with a skin. That's the good old recipe that, surviving food intolerances, will help your breed breed.

 

[Jonesboy]

"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.

Certainly, objects that get in the way and do not vanish, are a popular construction for creatures that need to get easily from A to B.

 

[Craig4]

It's not New Age. Say it for what it is. A skepticism of Science.

I am a scientist, and I am a philosopher, and I say this - range your skepticism over everything that culture and learning has to offer you. Today my skepticism is directed at science, tomorrow it will be directed at religion.

How do you know your conclusions are correct without science? If you don't have repeatable results and data what value are your conclusions?

 

[Jonesboy]

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.

You said "An object is simply defined by what it does."

Yes, but I say "which object?"

 

[Jonesboy]

How do you know your conclusions are correct without science? If you don't have repeatable results and data what value are your conclusions?

Results are important. But results do not judge the validity or relevance of results.

 

[Craig4]

You said "An object is simply defined by what it does."

Yes, but I say "which object?"

The table, the glass (okay, the coaster), the beer. Those objects.

 

[citizenzen]

Yes, I agree. But the quivering is physical. The sound is a non-physical perception and can't be found anywhere.

That doesn't make sense. If the quivering from vibrations is there, then it's physical.

If you want to argue that it takes a brain to process and interpret that vibration as a "sound" then okay ... your picking nits.

If your pet dog perks up it's ears and turns it's head because it hears a sound beyond your perception, do you think that there was no sound (physical vibration) at all and your dog was simply imagining things?

You see electromagnetic radiation at a very narrow bandwidth and interpret that as color. Other electromagnetic wavelengths are undetectable to our senses. Do you think they simply don't exist because you can't detect them?