ontological_realist
Member
Do you think that there can be an object without any subject? And why?
-
Features
Can there be an object without any subject?
- Thread starter ontological_realist
- Start date
connick
Junior Member
I think so. If subjects were necessary for objects to exist then the objects that were precursors of subjects would never have existed and therefore subjects would not now exist.ontological_realist said:
What do you think?
GenesisNemesis
Let's Go Dark Brandon!
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,922
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
If I understand what's meant by "subject" correctly, wouldn't it simply be any unknown object?
What do you mean by subject and object? As I understand the usage of the terms in philosophy, a subject is an observer and an object is a thing being observed. Is that what you're talking about?
If so, then objects can exist quite well without subjects - we're completely irrelevant to their being there.
If so, then objects can exist quite well without subjects - we're completely irrelevant to their being there.
From Wikipedia:
A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and unique experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside of itself (called an "object").
So yea.. objects can exist and not be subjects.. everything that is non-living can not be a conscious subject, and arguably some living things can not be a conscious subject.
If you take the second meaning, though, anything can be a subject.
A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and unique experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside of itself (called an "object").
So yea.. objects can exist and not be subjects.. everything that is non-living can not be a conscious subject, and arguably some living things can not be a conscious subject.
If you take the second meaning, though, anything can be a subject.
ontological_realist
Member
By object, I mean a physical object like table, chair, sun or moon etc.
By subject, I mean observer, perciever, knower or cognizer etc.
By subject, I mean observer, perciever, knower or cognizer etc.
ontological_realist
Member
I am not sure as to the answer of the question of this thread but I have some ideas about it which I will try to articulate:-
What is an object?
Let us consider the room where you are sitting in right now. How many objects are in this room? Do you count a table as one object? Why not the four legs of the table as four objects and the top of the table as one object? So then there are five objects. Why not each atom in the table as one object? Then the table is not one object but trillions of objects. Does it depend on how the cognizer chooses to look at it?
If instead of a human cognizer, the cognizer is a mouse, how will the mouse divide the room in to separate objects in its mind? Probably not like a human.
continued in the next post:-
What is an object?
Let us consider the room where you are sitting in right now. How many objects are in this room? Do you count a table as one object? Why not the four legs of the table as four objects and the top of the table as one object? So then there are five objects. Why not each atom in the table as one object? Then the table is not one object but trillions of objects. Does it depend on how the cognizer chooses to look at it?
If instead of a human cognizer, the cognizer is a mouse, how will the mouse divide the room in to separate objects in its mind? Probably not like a human.
continued in the next post:-
ontological_realist
Member
Continued: If a man from some jungle tribe who has never come out from there, is brought in to this room, what objects he will make in his mind from from this room? Right now the objects you are making from this room are also in your mind perhaps? I mean all what ever is there is there but dividing the totality in to separate objects is done by the cognizer or the subject.
All what ever is there in the universe or multiverse or total reality is what ever it is but each cogniser or subject divides it according to cognitive faculties he has. Most humans agree with each other about what is the right way to divide the world (universe, multiverse, or all that exists) because they all have very similar cognitive faculties. But conscious beings of very different type of cognitive faculties who may have some faculties missing which humans have but may have some other very advanced faculties of other types which humans can not imagine or even conceive of may be making objects from this same reality extremely differently. There may be existing things in this room which no human (including human scientist) can cognize. There may be happening events in this room which no human can even conceive of because humans do not have the cognitive faculties required.
These are some unfinished ideas.
All what ever is there in the universe or multiverse or total reality is what ever it is but each cogniser or subject divides it according to cognitive faculties he has. Most humans agree with each other about what is the right way to divide the world (universe, multiverse, or all that exists) because they all have very similar cognitive faculties. But conscious beings of very different type of cognitive faculties who may have some faculties missing which humans have but may have some other very advanced faculties of other types which humans can not imagine or even conceive of may be making objects from this same reality extremely differently. There may be existing things in this room which no human (including human scientist) can cognize. There may be happening events in this room which no human can even conceive of because humans do not have the cognitive faculties required.
These are some unfinished ideas.
My take of it is that there are no object out there, but the stuff that we mentally organize as objects are, often, real.
Look at at som peebleson the ground. You may see three heaps, another person may se five heaps. Thus the grouping is in your mind. The stuff out there that you recognize as peebles are real, the group are not.
But what difference are there really between a group of peebles and a group of atoms? Covalent bonds has been suggested but then a gas cloud wouldnt be an object so...
Look at at som peebleson the ground. You may see three heaps, another person may se five heaps. Thus the grouping is in your mind. The stuff out there that you recognize as peebles are real, the group are not.
But what difference are there really between a group of peebles and a group of atoms? Covalent bonds has been suggested but then a gas cloud wouldnt be an object so...
Well, the objects are all out there external to us and we're irrelevant to their existence.
What you seem to be talking about is our categorization of them. If the jungle man goes into a room and says:
"There are 86 trillion atoms in this room" or
"There are four legs and a table top in this room" or
"There is a table in this room"
All of those are correct (and yes, the average table does contain exactly 86 trillion atoms - look it up) and none of them are dependent on the existence of a subject to be true. How we categorize the objects which are external to us is an internal property of the subject and the categorization isn't a property of the object itself.
What you seem to be talking about is our categorization of them. If the jungle man goes into a room and says:
"There are 86 trillion atoms in this room" or
"There are four legs and a table top in this room" or
"There is a table in this room"
All of those are correct (and yes, the average table does contain exactly 86 trillion atoms - look it up) and none of them are dependent on the existence of a subject to be true. How we categorize the objects which are external to us is an internal property of the subject and the categorization isn't a property of the object itself.
Is this kind of like Schrödinger's cat but you never get to open the box? So not only are you asked whether the cat is alive or dead, but also whether it's even in there?
Seems to me the mass of the thing does not depend upon me seeing it. The life of the thing is real without me knowing it. It might not exist to me but it exists.
Seems to me the mass of the thing does not depend upon me seeing it. The life of the thing is real without me knowing it. It might not exist to me but it exists.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
I object: I is the subject object.
tantric
Member
Traditionally Buddhist thoughts on this -
An observer without anything to observe is empty. A object that cannot be observed is functionally nonexistant. An instance of reality is thus composed of the interaction between observer and object - each requires the other to meaningfully exist. The universe is neither objective nor subjective, it is nondual. Getting though the layers of culture and jargon to understand the points behind yogacara and nondualism is a massive task, but there are insights there. If you really want to know, I'll go into it.
An observer without anything to observe is empty. A object that cannot be observed is functionally nonexistant. An instance of reality is thus composed of the interaction between observer and object - each requires the other to meaningfully exist. The universe is neither objective nor subjective, it is nondual. Getting though the layers of culture and jargon to understand the points behind yogacara and nondualism is a massive task, but there are insights there. If you really want to know, I'll go into it.
Functionally nonexistent is an infinity away from actually nonexistent. They're still there, but they're just pointless without a subject interacting with it. That interaction and the conceptualizations which arise from it are separate topics from the actual existence of the object, which isn't dependent on any of that.
tantric
Member
Where can an object that by definition cannot be observed exist except in your mind? How can subject and object be fully separated or exist independent of one another? I *promise* I'll dig back into this, but frankly, right now I'm doing some serious research and the nondual mind, while enlightened and all, isn't very helpful with that. This is probably the worst thing I could do, but here's a fairly comprehensible reference: The Myth of Mind - Independent Reality & t he Metaphysics of Nondual Epiontic Quantum Mindnature
The object is exactly where it is in the external world. Nobody knowing about it doesn't stop it from being there.
Take a rock, for example. For a billion years, it sits on the ground doing nothing with nobody around it and yet it exists during that entire period. Then a slug comes along and uses it for shade. It now has a subject giving it meaning and conceptualizing it, but that doesn't affect the fact that the rock was there before the slug gave it meaning and it is there after the slug wanders off to do whatever it is that slugs do when they're not sitting under rocks.
The rock then sits around existing in the external world all by itself without any subjects for a few million years until a chimpanzee happens by and picks it up and uses it to beat a rival to death so that he can steal his females. The actions of the subject have now turned the rock into a tool with a purpose, so it has a functional existence which it had been lacking for an eon, but that's separate from it's plain, old ordinary existence which had been going on unimpeded during all that time with no subjects anywhere near it.
A few million more years go by with nobody around the rock and then a young boy finds it, paints a face on it and keeps it in his room as his best friend and talks to it every day. It is now an important and central part of subject's life and has all sorts of brand new associations and conceptualizations given to it. None of those, however, are relevant to it's physical existence as a rock in the external world.
It sounds to me like you are saying that the rock is not an object which exists during all the intervening millions of years between these events because without the interaction of an observer and the object, there is no instance of reality associated with it, so it's not physically present until there's someone to notice that it's there since objects only exist in our minds. Is that your position or am I misunderstanding you?
tantric
Member
Yes and no (joke). It's been a while, but let me try to do this justice in my own words. The core ides is sunyata, which has a range of meaning between 'empty' and 'spacious'. In Buddhist philosophy, it is the core aspect of reality. The best phrasing I've ever encountered is "Reality is transparent to analysis" where sunyata=transparent. It's a way of saying that all analysis fails in the ends, leading to paradox or contradiction (reducto ad absurdum or prasangika) - this thread goes nowhere but there. More importantly, all existence is dependent on other parts of existence. Wiki: pratityasamutpada or interdependent co-arising means that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity. (so much for my own words). That's madhyamika IIRC.
When you speak of the rock, you have presumed the existence of an objective reality that exists outside of your mind, but you know it's inherently impossible to prove that. We normally disregard subjectivism because it's flat useless. Because of the way our nervous system is conditioned, we then assume the opposite - there is an objective universe independent of our consciousness, which is also unprovable, but very, very useful. Buddhists don't take that latter and run with it, mostly because the logic isn't boolean - 'indeterminable' is valid. What does it tell us about reality that it cannot be proven to be either completely subjective or objective? Hmm. Well, what is reality? What is the process of it. We do experience reality, and it doesn't seem to be under our control or direction. It seems plausible to assume that there is something out there - that what we perceive is based on *something* (non-solipsism). But all those perceptions are just that - filtered and limited, not just by our senses, but by our mental processes. You look at the screen and see a computer, but there is nothing in the metal and plastic that has 'computerness'. So, we call that unknowable object the 'seed of reality'. As much as you like the rock spinning in empty space, an unperceived object is inherently imaginary. The true nature of the seed, outside of our perceptual filters, is unknowable, yet it must exist or we would have no such perceptions. This is how the seed becomes an instance of reality, which is not a thing, but a process.
Buddhist meditation aims at allowing a person to experience that non-duality, to experience the process of reality without mental filters, where you are neither one with everything nor separate from it. This is my own point of view - it's very hard to verbalize. But it must be true that reality, existence, is unproblematic and that whatever contradiction we find arise from our broken language or thought patterns.
That probably didn't help.
When you speak of the rock, you have presumed the existence of an objective reality that exists outside of your mind, but you know it's inherently impossible to prove that. We normally disregard subjectivism because it's flat useless. Because of the way our nervous system is conditioned, we then assume the opposite - there is an objective universe independent of our consciousness, which is also unprovable, but very, very useful. Buddhists don't take that latter and run with it, mostly because the logic isn't boolean - 'indeterminable' is valid. What does it tell us about reality that it cannot be proven to be either completely subjective or objective? Hmm. Well, what is reality? What is the process of it. We do experience reality, and it doesn't seem to be under our control or direction. It seems plausible to assume that there is something out there - that what we perceive is based on *something* (non-solipsism). But all those perceptions are just that - filtered and limited, not just by our senses, but by our mental processes. You look at the screen and see a computer, but there is nothing in the metal and plastic that has 'computerness'. So, we call that unknowable object the 'seed of reality'. As much as you like the rock spinning in empty space, an unperceived object is inherently imaginary. The true nature of the seed, outside of our perceptual filters, is unknowable, yet it must exist or we would have no such perceptions. This is how the seed becomes an instance of reality, which is not a thing, but a process.
Buddhist meditation aims at allowing a person to experience that non-duality, to experience the process of reality without mental filters, where you are neither one with everything nor separate from it. This is my own point of view - it's very hard to verbalize. But it must be true that reality, existence, is unproblematic and that whatever contradiction we find arise from our broken language or thought patterns.
That probably didn't help.
No it isnt, not in any reasonable meaning of the word.
The experienced object of the rock, the object in the minds eye, of course require the subject, since that IS what the minds eye is but the real part of universe that has the behaviour we call "a rock" doesnt need any subject.
tantric
Member
Hmm - you still presume the existence of the objective universe - prove it. Prove that a rock exists - that the entire universe isn't your personal hallucination. If you start with the presumption that the rock doesn't need a subject, you've answered your own question. I don't care about convincing you - this is a thought exercise. These guys really didn't know if it was live or Memorex, and they didn't assume. If you want to see what they saw, you have to let go of that. I promise, it's a very interesting POV.
Last edited:
OK, our senses evolved over billions of years in order to allow us to navigate the external world. That's why we have them. We know that they give fairly accurate models of the objects in the external world because if they didn't, our ancestors wouldn't have been able to survive in the world. Do you believe in evolution? It sounds to me like you're talking about some form of Buddhist creationism where there's nothing that exists without the previous existence of an intelligence to give it form.
Are you familiar with the rock cycle? It's essentially when magma cools to make rocks which then come up to the surface and are worn away by the elements to become dust which then piles up and is compacted down over the years to become new rocks. All of that happens without the intervention of or experience by any subjects whatsoever. Do you think that's a real thing which happens or something which came to be when people started studying rocks?
I agree that the Matrix-type idea where we don't know if the world is a hallucination is an interesting POV. The Scientologists' idea that all of our problems are due to crazy alien ghosts glomming onto us because they're pissed off about an intergalactic tyrant who nuked them in a volcano is also an interesting POV. The question is whether those ideas give us more information about the universe or less information about the universe. I feel that they give us less.