Can there be an object without any subject?

[fast]

I just think that if you're going to agree with something someone means, then there's no need to agree with what they say when what they say doesn't correspond with what they mean.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

You can still be classy about it.

???

X=A small domesticated carnivorous mammal (Felis catus), kept as a pet and as catcher of vermin, and existing in a variety of breeds

If you say that a cat (as opposed to the word, "cat") is defined as X (shown above), and if the distinction between a cat and it's corresponding word is superfluous to the discussion, then I can discreetly show that I agree with what you mean without pointing out that I disagree with what you said--perhaps by saying that I completely agree with what you mean, for the word, "cat" is defined as X (as shown above).

I find, however, that in philosophical discussions, keeping mindful of important distinctions and being overtly explicit helps (sometimes) to alleviate the pains associated with not having similar conceptions of the words and their meanings. The content of a discussion seems to become more fruitful quicker once everyone becomes more exact in their word usage.

(Might be some wishful thinking in there)

 

[Juma]

Not so fast... We speak of objects outside of the mind because it seems to make sense. It works. But what we refers is not really as well defined as objects.
We have concepts. These concepts refers to something I dont think we should use the word "object" about . Because "object" is way to rich/strong a concept.

You said that we gather data about X (galaxy). Why can't something that we gather information about be defined as something outside of the mind? It's a pretty safe term. I am sure you have to use terms as or more controversial than "object" just to talk about an object.

When you talk about a something some properties derive from the definition more than from the real world. Take the planets of this solar system as an obvious example: the mass of them has decreased a lot during the last ten years just because pluto is no longer a planet. It is a silly, but valid, example. Of course there is some behavior that is the cause of the data (if the phenomen is real) but you say too much if you say it is an object.

 

[Juma]

Eh. But there is no "thing" out there. "Thing" is something you can think of. Thus it is represented by your brain.

Well then where does data come from? Anything that is not the mind is out there.

The data comes from the real world.

And the mind is our there too.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand what you are saying here.

You can still be classy about it.

???

X=A small domesticated carnivorous mammal (Felis catus), kept as a pet and as catcher of vermin, and existing in a variety of breeds

If you say that a cat (as opposed to the word, "cat") is defined as X (shown above), and if the distinction between a cat and it's corresponding word is superfluous to the discussion, then I can discreetly show that I agree with what you mean without pointing out that I disagree with what you said--perhaps by saying that I completely agree with what you mean, for the word, "cat" is defined as X (as shown above).

I find, however, that in philosophical discussions, keeping mindful of important distinctions and being overtly explicit helps (sometimes) to alleviate the pains associated with not having similar conceptions of the words and their meanings. The content of a discussion seems to become more fruitful quicker once everyone becomes more exact in their word usage.

(Might be some wishful thinking in there)

I see.

 

[ryan]

You said that we gather data about X (galaxy). Why can't something that we gather information about be defined as something outside of the mind? It's a pretty safe term. I am sure you have to use terms as or more controversial than "object" just to talk about an object.

When you talk about a something some properties derive from the definition more than from the real world. Take the planets of this solar system as an obvious example: the mass of them has decreased a lot during the last ten years just because pluto is no longer a planet. It is a silly, but valid, example. Of course there is some behavior that is the cause of the data (if the phenomen is real) but you say too much if you say it is an object.

What do you mean the planets have less mass than before?

How can something not be real? It could be deceiving, an illusion, false, etc, but it is always always always real. Real is the final frontier; it holds everything.

 

[Juma]

When you talk about a something some properties derive from the definition more than from the real world. Take the planets of this solar system as an obvious example: the mass of them has decreased a lot during the last ten years just because pluto is no longer a planet. It is a silly, but valid, example. Of course there is some behavior that is the cause of the data (if the phenomen is real) but you say too much if you say it is an object.

What do you mean the planets have less mass than before?
.

Pluto is not a planet anymore.

 

[ryan]

Well then where does data come from? Anything that is not the mind is out there.

The data comes from the real world.

And the mind is our there too.

So is this solipsism? I don't mean the definition of solipsism that says that all that exists is one's own mind, but rather the definition that says that all that can be known for sure is one's own mind? If so then I think I cans argue ways out of this, but I will wait for your answer first.

 

[Juma]

The data comes from the real world.

And the mind is our there too.

So is this solipsism? I don't mean the definition of solipsism that says that all that exists is one's own mind, but rather the definition that says that all that can be known for sure is one's own mind? If so then I think I cans argue ways out of this, but I will wait for your answer first.

"Know for sure" is a evil bastard. I dont think we need that. And no, i dont think this is solipsism in any way. It is just a reminder that what we know about what is out there is expressed in a language created by the human mind.

What is the implications? Never trust "facts" that is not supported by empiri. Good models are acheived by testing. Etc.

 

[ontological_realist]

I don't know what hooligan tactics you refer to.

That is the origin of the Thing. You can google it.

Also, our senses provide us with information about the external world because there was a survival advantage to being able to know what's around us and navigate that external world. That's the number one reason that we know things about the external world. This distinguished us from our ancestors' cousins who couldn't do it as well and got eaten or starved as a result.

O.K. No problem. Let us forget it.

What you wrote here, I agree with it in the context you are writing and I do not need to google it as it makes good sense to me.

The problem is that we are talking in different contexts.

I hope to clarify this latter but right now I am too tired. Thanks.

.

 

[ontological_realist]

Can't there be stuff without our talking about it?

This is coming closer to what I wanted to say.

It seems to me that there can be and is existence( x? ) (I do not know what to call it) of some sort which is independent of any cognizer. But objects or things as humans cognize can not be without humans and these will not have objective existence( for example: mountains, oceans, stars, atoms, quarks, waves or force fields etc.) .


.

 

[ontological_realist]

I know I have not been able to be clear in my post # 170. Hope fully later I can be more clear.

See, the universe looks one way to humans, another way to eagles and yet another way to cats.

So, what does the universe really look like?

 

[fast]

Can't there be stuff without our talking about it?

This is coming closer to what I wanted to say.

It seems to me that there can be and is existence( x? ) (I do not know what to call it) of some sort which is independent of any cognizer. But objects or things as humans cognize can not be without humans and these will not have objective existence( for example: mountains, oceans, stars, atoms, quarks, waves or force fields etc.) .


.

Things of our world are just what they are whether we are around to be cognizantly aware of them or not. Isn't the sun that lights up and heats our planet the very exact thing it was before humans entered the picture?

Of course, there would be no chairs had there been no people to invent them, but that upon which we sit (which is an object invented by people) is no different because of our awareness of its existence.

As humans cognize? What has our ability or inability to describe that which we sense alter that which we sense? Our perception of what's out there changes nothing about what is out there, and even if we comprehend what which we sense substantially different than another mammal, the things of the world are and can only be that which they are, and to think our perceptions (rose colored as they might or might not be) of that which is out there is a biased misshaping of the truth of what's really out there, I would submit that different views of the truth (oh say from a monkey perceiving the moon as a glowing glob) doesn't negate the accuracy of the truth described by only how humans do.

 

[fast]

I know I have not been able to be clear in my above post. Hope fully later I can be more clear.

See, the universe looks one way to humans, another way to eagles and yet another way to cats.

So, what does the universe really look like?

I have to be careful talking about cats. I think they're watching me.

 

[ontological_realist]

Ya, if the object is defined as something within a subject's mind, then the OP question makes no sense because objects are dependent on a subject. It's only if they're defined as something external to us that the question even has meaning.

Or they could just say that only perceptions exist, not objects. There is no need to redefine something and confuse things.

Well, that makes good sense to me!

Perhaps I should say that only perceptions exist, and objects do not exist. What actually exists in reality is X . We only project our perceptions out side as objects.

 

[ontological_realist]

(Repeat):-


I know I have not been able to be clear in my post # 170. Hope fully later I can be more clear.

See, the universe looks one way to humans, another way to eagles and yet another way to cats.

So, what does the universe really look like?

 

[ontological_realist]

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

Assume that there are some people in a room. They all get a perception of a red chair in the room. They have this perception because they have similar model of outside world and have similar human cognitive faculties. Their perceptions are so similar that can practically be taken as the same (but actually they are only similar and not the same). They can speak of objects in this model as if they were in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the illusion of a shared model.


Juma, you have said it! Great. Thank you. I was struggling towards this.


.

 

[fast]

As Pooh says, "oh bother!"

 

[ryan]

Or they could just say that only perceptions exist, not objects. There is no need to redefine something and confuse things.

Well, that makes good sense to me!

Perhaps I should say that only perceptions exist, and objects do not exist. What actually exists in reality is X . We only project our perceptions out side as objects.

This is what I thought you and Juma were saying. This seems to be solipsism; however, Juma doesn't think so.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Assume that there are se poeple in a room. They all view a red chair. That red chair is the object because they are all having similar models of the outside world. Becsuse they are humans and of similar background theit models are so similar so they can effectivily be seen as the same. They can speak of objects in this model as if they where in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the "illusion" of a shared model.

Assume that there are some people in a room. They all get a perception of a red chair in the room. They have this perception because they have similar model of outside world and have similar human cognitive faculties. Their perceptions are so similar that can practically be taken as the same (but actually they are only similar and not the same). They can speak of objects in this model as if they were in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the illusion of a shared model.


Juma, you have said it! Great. Thank you. I was struggling towards this.


.

But the reason that they have this common model is because there is a red, chair-shaped object in the room. The common model isn't due to something internal to them, it's due to their all looking at the same external object.

 

[Juma]

Assume that there are some people in a room. They all get a perception of a red chair in the room. They have this perception because they have similar model of outside world and have similar human cognitive faculties. Their perceptions are so similar that can practically be taken as the same (but actually they are only similar and not the same). They can speak of objects in this model as if they were in a common model. Thus there is where objects roam: in the illusion of a shared model.


Juma, you have said it! Great. Thank you. I was struggling towards this.


.

But the reason that they have this common model is because there is a red, chair-shaped object in the room. The common model isn't due to something internal to them, it's due to their all looking at the same external object.

What makes it red? The human eyes and visual brain center. What makes it a chair? The shape of the human body. What makes it one? The human perception and the human interpretation of it as a chair.