What is Space?

[Filip Sandor]

Can the reality of "space" be communicated on a purely intellectual level to someone who has never moved around before and is completely blind??

The circumstances of the questoin are pretty to understand, but what is the answer to this question?

I urge anyone who is interested to put forth ideas into a discussion on!

(oh yeah and try to stay on the topic of the discussion please!)

 

[Riddick]

i stand the blind person right up next to me, so that our chests are touching. then i say "you're invading my personal space."

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Not hard, since someone who is blind and capable of said discussion has surely moved through space before. Space is what you move through.

Now, if they're blind since birth and don't have any knees, that's a little trickier.

 

[Piscivore]

[lifegazer]
Space doesn't exist! My philosophy proves it! It's not an assumption! You plonkers!
[/lifegazer]

Sorry, I miss that guy.

Seriously, if someone never moved and was perfectly isolated from things coming into contact with him, would there be a need to explain space to him? Could an intelligent fish communicate what breathing through gills is like?

 

[lifegazer]

Can the reality of "space" be communicated on a purely intellectual level to someone who has never moved around before and is completely blind??

One can only attempt to communicate the inner-experience of anything, which is not the reality of anything.
The knowledge or awareness of all things comes directly from inner sensations.
When you define anything, you are defining your inner experience of it.
So no, the reality of space cannot be communicated. The reality of the Self is all one can hope to communicate.

 

[Filip Sandor]

i stand the blind person right up next to me, so that our chests are touching. then i say "you're invading my personal space."

Ok maybe I wasn't being clear, if that's my fault I apologize. My intention of restricting the physical senses of the 'subject' that help to comprise their idea of space is to test weather a logically feasible definition of space can be formulated without the need to experience the senses that helps us 'define' space.

 

[Filip Sandor]

[lifegazer]
Space doesn't exist! My philosophy proves it! It's not an assumption! You plonkers!
[/lifegazer]

Sorry, I miss that guy.

Seriously, if someone never moved and was perfectly isolated from things coming into contact with him, would there be a need to explain space to him? Could an intelligent fish communicate what breathing through gills is like?

That's an interesting point you make there Piscivore. It raises a question in my head... why are certain physical sensation and packets of information 'localized' into our awareness??

Perhaps our concept of space is not an accurate representation of the "real thing," even though it's so commonly accepted as something real.

 

[Loki]

Space Is Deep

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ok maybe I wasn't being clear, if that's my fault I apologize. My intention of restricting the physical senses of the 'subject' that help to comprise their idea of space is to test weather a logically feasible definition of space can be formulated without the need to experience the senses that helps us 'define' space.

I would say no. Without senses all we have are "light" explanations to blind people.

 

[Filip Sandor]

I would say no. Without senses all we have are "light" explanations to blind people.

This is what is so fascinating to me B-D-Z. A blind and immobalized person who has had no dynamic, physical experiences can't understand what space is through language alone, even though our linguistic definition of space might seem logically coherent.

 

[Bruce]

Space, as I understand it, is an undefined region in which resides the complete and utter absense of stuff.

 

[Atlas]

I think you'd have more luck explaining space than you would RED to a blind person.

The blind immobiliazed individual would need only 3 concepts to begin... self, other and between.

Without those I doubt you'd have any luck at all.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is what is so fascinating to me B-D-Z. A blind and immobalized person who has had no dynamic, physical experiences can't understand what space is through language alone, even though our linguistic definition of space might seem logically coherent.

Yep, it is fascinating. This of course leads to the inadequacy of language to express ideas or concepts. We think it can be done, but...

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The blind immobiliazed individual would need only 3 concepts to begin... self, other and between.

EVEN those 3 "simple" concepts need the emergency of a language to occur, and that wont happen if there is nobody else around. This, by the way, is where everything started... and by everything I mean EVERYTHING.

I think you and Filip will find this text really illuminating, its from Heller Keller's book, and also appears in "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett:

"Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another".

 

[Atlas]

Nice quotation BD Zen.

I agree that we have to make some assumptions about our blind immobilized friend. Filip has restricted his experience and senses but not necessarily his intellectual capacity. Nor has he said that language itself is an obstacle. In fact, that seems to be the question... Is human language robust enough to communicate a concept such as space to an individual that has no concept of it.

Wasn't there a Zen story of a Master who brought in several disciples and asked them to communicate the contents of a large vase that was sitting on the floor between them... the challenge was to do this without speaking a word. One by one the looked inside, thought a moment, and went back and stood in line perplexed. Until, that is, Verysmartmonk walked over and peered inside - he then kicked the vase over spilling the contents for all to see, which pleased the Master greatly.

Space is a lot trickier to communicate without uttering a word. Pantomime in front of the blind is like juggling for a radio audience, most of the experience is lost.

If our handicapped friend has NO facility with language of any kind, I doubt we can offer much. Helen Keller was not immobilized nor deprived of the experience of touching objects.

 

[Piscivore]

I think you and Filip will find this text really illuminating, its from Heller Keller's book, and also appears in "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett:

"Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another".

Pretty much what I was thinking. I read Keller's book decades ago, this idea must have been floating around in my head.

The thing I always wondered about Helen, even back then, was this: would her intelligence, devoid of any frame of reference to the common-consensus world of "normal" human culture and activity, be a "human" intelligence?

 

[Atlas]

Pretty much what I was thinking. I read Keller's book decades ago, this idea must have been floating around in my head.

The thing I always wondered about Helen, even back then, was this: would her intelligence, devoid of any frame of reference to the common-consensus world of "normal" human culture and activity, be a "human" intelligence?

That's kind of a fascinating question. I think it all comes down to definitions, kind of like, "Are slaves human beings like us? Or just about 3/5 human?"

For me an intelligence in a human body becomes human with a facility of language. So that rules out the comatose and gorillas who can use sign language. I think my definition has a problem with babies - maybe I need to change it to "a developed intelligence" or "has or can develop a facility with language."

I'm saying this because we seem to tacitly admit that some intelligences in human bodies need to be kept outside the general public... locked away... corraled in asylums like cattle.

Others may insist that those with severe demetia still possess human intelligence but I would counter that they had it but now it is lost to them due to some form of brain damage.

That is, definitions matter a great deal is answering your question.

 

[Filip Sandor]

Pretty much what I was thinking. I read Keller's book decades ago, this idea must have been floating around in my head.

The thing I always wondered about Helen, even back then, was this: would her intelligence, devoid of any frame of reference to the common-consensus world of "normal" human culture and activity, be a "human" intelligence?

What is intelligence??

Let's say I put you in a dark room from birth then turn on the lights to expose a red and blue button on a white board in front of you. I press the red button and the lights in the room turn RED and then I press the blue button and the lights in the room turn BLUE - at this point your brain (as long as it is developed well enough) will form a conceptual connection between these events. When the light goes on there will be a red and blue button, when the blue button is pressed there will be blue light and when the red button is pressed there will be red light, but in reality, no logic is implied by any of the said experiences and the "logical connections" realised by you are creations of your mind.

Unless intelligence mandates knowledge or memory then I would say it is inherent to all human beings regardless... what do you think about that?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

A definition of space is like a recipe for chili. It all depends on your point of view.
There is space between Quarks that make up elementary particles , space between those particles, space those particles and their counterparts, ( in atoms) space between a solar system and a galaxy and it's neighbors.

The idea is that all matter at all scales has unoccupied zones between themselves and the next constituent of the environment.
Empty space is anything but.

Even in the most void of all spaces , there is VE and virtual particles.

Outer Space is not empty it has many point particles and photons , x-rays, and so on.

I believe that You want a Philosophical definition of "nothingness" . That is rather different. Post on Nietzsche , Sartre and Kierkegaard .
The funny part here is that if nothing has a word associated with it ..it is no longer "Nothing".


edit to add: mistaken forum.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think we are talking about if the abstract notion of "space" is transmissible to a person who is not "in touch" with it, so to speak.