There are no material objects

[Dancing David]

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.

So do you hear better with wax in your ears?

Paraphrase of
Sidhartha Shakyamuni Gotama

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Um, sounds are perceptual events, noises are pressure waves, fine point. They are still material.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for that. Where do I go for such discussions?

As an aside, I would argue with your idea that material and ideal ontologies are identical. I can show you that they are not identical.

Not really, you can pretend that they are, but there is no way to tell the difference. For us, we could all be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy and BIVs. The end result is teh same no matter what.

You can suppose that there are differences, but there would be no way to tell.

So how could you tell, this is an idea that many have rejected but those who ponder will understand.

Thanks to HammeGK for this understanding.

You can argue but there is no way to tell the two apart, yet it could be that the Great Mind manifests as 'material objects', idealists often speculate that there would be a difference. Many materialists disagree until they ponder it.

But this is just speculation...

 

[Dancing David]

sorry. What I meant to say was, was that there was no physical property that could define the physical limits of a TV. Unless, of course, that you had a;lready defined a TV and its physical limits.


'Colour is not a thing' I said - I meant a physical thing. You used the term "interaction". But an interaction poses as a thing between two domains, in this case colour and nervous system. The two domains cannot be merged by the tern "interact". It only falls between them, as a reference to a metaphor.

Nope from what it appears the 'colour' is a perceptual event of a biological body.

Words are mataphors, yes. 'cars' will still run you over.

 

[Dancing David]

The TV is distinguishable from the carpet only because you have distinguished the carpet and the TV. The material world sees, or holds, no such distinction.

Um, so?

We already know words are idiomatic referenecs between communicants. This does not mean that you can call a 'wall' a door and 'walk' through it.

And I am curious how you claim to have knowledge of what the material world 'sees, or holds', nice speculation there.

So lets cut to the chase, we already know that cars do not contain a property of 'fast', okay?

Now what?

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for that. Where do I go for such discussions?

Use the search function of the forum you can set it to R&P 'consciousness', 'qualia' and 'mathematics'.

 

[Dancing David]

So why didn't you play the kerbstone and the fence? Or have you already selected the instruments you want?
Are you saying that the instruments selected themselves?

If you poke your finger in your eye, it does not become the moon.

Seriously, you are taking the flashlight of enlightenment and staring into it.

Maybe you should reread your Jung... especially the parts he wrote later in his life about the functions of age in self

 

[Elizabeth I]

There is a tree, but a tree 'is so' by its sentience. There is no material property that is a tree.

Are you saying that trees are sentient?

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.

Yes, you can - and do! Boy, do you - talk about it, but apparently you can't do so coherently or with any idea of communicating to someone else.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

sorry. What I meant to say was, was that there was no physical property that could define the physical limits of a TV. Unless, of course, that you had a;lready defined a TV and its physical limits.


'Colour is not a thing' I said - I meant a physical thing. You used the term "interaction". But an interaction poses as a thing between two domains, in this case colour and nervous system. The two domains cannot be merged by the tern "interact". It only falls between them, as a reference to a metaphor.

Thank you, but you seem to define color, sound, nervous system, mind in such a way as to produce the result you would like -- either toward some form of property dualism or idealism.

To a physicalist, both sound/color/etc. and nervous system are physical -- so there is no issue in their interaction and interaction is not simply a reference to metaphor.


Physicalists speak of physical 'things' that act in the world and part of that action is interaction between two physical 'things'. The deeper insight is that those physical 'things' are themselves actions or interactions. We do not have a proper definition of 'energy'.

If you want to speak about interaction between the physical and non-physical, perhaps you could provide a mechanism? How do such things happen? Isn't interaction defined in physical terms and so impossible for the non-physical? I've yet to encounter a proper explanation of mind body dualism if that is what you are after, so I would appreciate your explanation if you have one.

As to the physical limits of a TV, properly speaking there is no precise physical limit when examined at an extremely small scale. At the scale in which we carry out our daily lives the physical limit, for vision, is created by edge detectors that begin their processing in the retina and carry on their processing in our brains. That aspect of object/ground distinction does not depend on language or the concept of function. The function of the TV produces another aspect of how we distinguish such an object from others that surround it, though.

But we can still define objects that serve one function in one setting as performing another function in another setting. That, in itself, should tell you that defining the function of an object is not the sine qua non of determining what is and what is not an object. We already saw the rock as different from its background because of those edge detectors (and other processing) before we ever decided to define its function as a table.

And, just to drive the point home, a physicalist views the 'mental' processes involved in all those perceptions as physical and not non-physical.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The TV is distinguishable from the carpet only because you have distinguished the carpet and the TV. The material world sees, or holds, no such distinction.

It depends what you mean by that. Let me hazard a guess -- do you mean there is no value in distinguishing between such 'things'? Without a valuer, it's all just 'stuff', after all?

Well, yes.

But it does not follow that there would be no physical limit defining a 'rock' as opposed to the ground beneath it in the radical absence of a valuer, depending, of course, how one defines value. For instance, we could build a robot without what a lot of folks would identify as emotion or motivation but who could distinguish between object and ground. That robot would see the limits of a rock as opposed to the ground on which it sat but wouldn't necessarily care a lick about it. In our radical absence, given a long-lasting power source, that robot would continue making that distinction. The robot would do so only because it was designed to make such distinctions.

We are also designed to make such distinctions by natural selection. We have feature detectors because we survive with them and would not survive without them. Those feature detectors are physical processes, though. There is nothing, from a physicalist viewpoint, that is immaterial here.

 

[Craig4]

So why didn't you play the kerbstone and the fence? Or have you already selected the instruments you want?
Are you saying that the instruments selected themselves?

Because a curbstone doesn't do what a musical instrument does. They have different functions.

 

[dafydd]

Because a curbstone doesn't do what a musical instrument does. They have different functions.

I selected the instruments when I bought them. This is a concept that Jonesboy will find hard to understand.

 

[tsig]

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.

I see, you took the train to fantasy land and forgot which station you got off at.

 

[Craig4]

Once again, what is the application for this?

 

[tsig]

How can you define the phsical limits of a TV to an alien that has no concept of entertainment or information, and who thinks through intuition alone?

As you suggested earlier I'd pick it up and hit him in the head with it.

 

[tsig]

Evidence that a tree is sentient?

Well, compared to some posters a tree is sentient.

 

[Dessi]

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.

You, sir, are ok by me.

 

[slingblade]

Well, compared to some posters a tree is sentient.

No arguing with that.

 

[slingblade]

Translation: "I am 36 years old and still live in my parent's basement, which is from where I wage my guild battles in WoW!"

Hey, hey, hey! Are you saying our JREF guild's defeat of Cho'Gall this weekend wasn't a valuable life experience?

You must be Alliance.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I see, you took the train to fantasy land and forgot which station you got off at.

Did tsig's post make anybody besides me think of this?

Picture yourself on a train in a station,
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties.
Suddenly someone is there at the turnstile,
The girl with kaleidoscope eyes.
- The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band