Can there be an object without any subject?

[Tom Sawyer]

But the subject is the one that creates the object. You can't abstract it from perception because you need somebody to be doing that abstraction. The object is anything but arbitrary but it is still wholely dependent on the subject's interpretation of what he perceives.

Light bounces off a rock, hits the subject's retina and then his brain creates an object as an internal representation of what his senses are showing him is infront of him. The object is the internal representation of what is in the external world and without a subject, you don't get an internal representation.

That's a percept. The object is independent of that. The percept is dependent on both the subject and the object.

Which is exactly why we specifically defined what you're calling the object the thing and what you're calling the percept the object. As long as one uses two different terms for them, it's not particularly important what those terms are, no matter how much better your terms are then my terms. I'm going to use yours from now on.

The issue of people saying that objects are dependent on subjects arises when they state that the object and the percept are the same thing. So long as a clear distinction is made between the two, that issue doesn't arise.

 

[ontological_realist]

But that's why there's a need for a distinction between "objects" and "things". Within the system of information exchange, a rock can be an object or Superman can be an object. When the rock refers to an external thing, that thing isn't dependent on the subject-object relationship and the rock doesn't depend on a subject creating an object to refer to it. Superman, on the other hand, doesn't refer to anything external to the system and when the subject disappears, the Superman object disappears as well.

So, what is a thing? Can you give an example?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But that's why there's a need for a distinction between "objects" and "things". Within the system of information exchange, a rock can be an object or Superman can be an object. When the rock refers to an external thing, that thing isn't dependent on the subject-object relationship and the rock doesn't depend on a subject creating an object to refer to it. Superman, on the other hand, doesn't refer to anything external to the system and when the subject disappears, the Superman object disappears as well.

So, what is a thing? Can you give an example?

Why? Was my example of a rock somehow complex and you needed something simpler? How about a stone?

Also an iPad. And a Thing action figure

 

[ontological_realist]

So, what is a thing? Can you give an example?

Why? Was my example of a rock somehow complex and you needed something simpler? How about a stone?

Also an iPad. And a Thing action figure

Why such negativity and rudeness! Is it mandatory to be rude and sarcastic in discussions on internet? Will being polite and courteous mean that you are weak or stupid? Can you not think that there may be something which you are missing. I am not interested in winning arguments and showing how smart I am . That is too childish and immature. Why not unbend a little and answer my question exactly?

Define a thing if you please.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why? Was my example of a rock somehow complex and you needed something simpler? How about a stone?

Also an iPad. And a Thing action figure

Why such negativity and rudeness! Is it mandatory to be rude and sarcastic in discussions on internet? Will being polite and courteous mean that you are weak or stupid? Can you not think that there may be something which you are missing. I am not interested in winning arguments and showing how smart I am . That is too childish and immature. Why not unbend a little and answer my question exactly?

Define a thing if you please.

Ya, I've been pissy with everyone the past few days. It's nothing to do with you and unrelated to the topic.

A thing is any object in the external world. Full stop. It's as un-complex a notion as there is.

 

[WAB]

http://www.bing.com/search?q=thing+...=-1&sk=&cvid=a52c78adf07a4f30ad35c06b12b84e31

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think that there can be an object without any subject? And why?

If the Universe is intelligent, then the answer, of course, is no.

But (_!_)


If the universe is how mainstream science says it is, there could be objects without a subject: material in space never observed by an intelligent entity.

repeat

 

[Juma]

A thing is any object in the external world. Full stop. It's as un-complex a notion as there is.

Not so fast. Grouping and limits are created by the subject.
Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

 

[WAB]

A thing is any object in the external world. Full stop. It's as un-complex a notion as there is.

Not so fast. Grouping and limits are created by the subject.
Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

• If there are two adjacent stones, there are two objects: two things.
• ^The above is human language, and has an existence distinct from the objects to which the language refers, an abstract existence, a conceptual existence, in one or any human mind, and has no tangible, quantitative relation to the objects mentioned.
• Many objects can [and probably do] exist independently of subjects.

 

[Juma]

[*]If there are two adjacent stones, there are two objects: two things.

are there? There is just atoms, and the atoms are just particle clouds. And the particle clouds? There are no two things out there. There are some structures but there are definitely not just two of anything.

The world as we see it is a construct of our perceiving organs. You can only start to grasp the enormitity of this by trying to recreate something similiar using computers and sensors. Then you realize that all input comes from analyze of sensordata similar to images and soundfiles. There are no "things" in those. And yet we are able to digitally extract a lot of features from them. That is not a complete proof but a good feed for thought..

 

[WAB]

[*]If there are two adjacent stones, there are two objects: two things.

are there? There is just atoms, and the atoms are just particle clouds. And the particle clouds? There are no two things out there. There are some structures but there are definitely not just two of anything.

The world as we see it is a construct of our perceiving organs. You can only start to grasp the enormitity of this by trying to recreate something similiar using computers and sensors. Then you realize that all input comes from analyze of sensordata similar to images and soundfiles. There are no "things" in those. And yet we are able to digitally extract a lot of features from them. That is not a complete proof but a good feed for thought..

Refer back to what I said about language. To us, to we, let us say, English speaking humans, two stones are two objects, and two things. These are just words, items expedient for communication. Atomic and subatomic complexity is real, but doesn't alter the fact that for us, two stones are two objects, two things. Our perception, and our nomenclature, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the objects that we perceive, and those objects exist independently of our perception, which is why they are called objects.

 

[WAB]

But may not the ideas, asked Socrates, be thoughts only, and have no proper existence except in our minds, Parmenides?

Plato (2012-05-12). Parmenides (p. 6). . Kindle Edition.

 

[Juma]

are there? There is just atoms, and the atoms are just particle clouds. And the particle clouds? There are no two things out there. There are some structures but there are definitely not just two of anything.

The world as we see it is a construct of our perceiving organs. You can only start to grasp the enormitity of this by trying to recreate something similiar using computers and sensors. Then you realize that all input comes from analyze of sensordata similar to images and soundfiles. There are no "things" in those. And yet we are able to digitally extract a lot of features from them. That is not a complete proof but a good feed for thought..

Refer back to what I said about language. To us, to we, let us say, English speaking humans, two stones are two objects, and two things. These are just words, items expedient for communication. Atomic and subatomic complexity is real, but doesn't alter the fact that for us, two stones are two objects, two things. Our perception, and our nomenclature, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the objects that we perceive, and those objects exist independently of our perception, which is why they are called objects.

We perceive. Perception includes forming a model that simplifies handling of input. That model is what we perceive as the world around us. Objects is a feature of that model. Since those objects models features in our input most of those feature are caused by "actual dependencies", features, of the real world. That does not entitle us to call these features (of the real world) "objects" because they do not have the properties that objects have.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A thing is any object in the external world. Full stop. It's as un-complex a notion as there is.

Not so fast. Grouping and limits are created by the subject.

What's "not so fast" about it? It's not something contrary to what I said. The groupings and limits are, of course, created by us but that's irrelevant to the fact that we're referencing external objects to apply those groupings and limits to - they're the internal percepts we build to reference the external objects.

Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

Yes in all cases. If we say "there are ten rocks there" or "there is one pile of rocks there", both are just our internal percepts used to categorize objects in the external world. There is matter out there in a certain form with certain properties. Whether you call it "a cloud of electrons" or "several rocks" or "one group of rocks" isn't important to the fact that they exist in the external world completley independent of any subject's categorization of them.

 

[fromderinside]

But the subject is the one that creates the object. You can't abstract it from perception because you need somebody to be doing that abstraction. The object is anything but arbitrary but it is still wholely dependent on the subject's interpretation of what he perceives.

Light bounces off a rock, hits the subject's retina and then his brain creates an object as an internal representation of what his senses are showing him is infront of him. The object is the internal representation of what is in the external world and without a subject, you don't get an internal representation.

That's a percept. The object is independent of that. The percept is dependent on both the subject and the object.

So what's wrong with using the substance of precept as an attribute of thing leading to the object? I'm not giving here because it's pretty clear that precept is represented in some determinable physical state.

 

[Juma]

Not so fast. Grouping and limits are created by the subject.

What's "not so fast" about it? It's not something contrary to what I said. The groupings and limits are, of course, created by us but that's irrelevant to the fact that we're referencing external objects to apply those groupings and limits to - they're the internal percepts we build to reference the external objects.

Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

Yes in all cases. If we say "there are ten rocks there" or "there is one pile of rocks there", both are just our internal percepts used to categorize objects in the external world. There is matter out there in a certain form with certain properties. Whether you call it "a cloud of electrons" or "several rocks" or "one group of rocks" isn't important to the fact that they exist in the external world completley independent of any subject's categorization of them.

Objects is the human representation of features in the external world. Dont confuse the representation with its cause.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's "not so fast" about it? It's not something contrary to what I said. The groupings and limits are, of course, created by us but that's irrelevant to the fact that we're referencing external objects to apply those groupings and limits to - they're the internal percepts we build to reference the external objects.

Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

Yes in all cases. If we say "there are ten rocks there" or "there is one pile of rocks there", both are just our internal percepts used to categorize objects in the external world. There is matter out there in a certain form with certain properties. Whether you call it "a cloud of electrons" or "several rocks" or "one group of rocks" isn't important to the fact that they exist in the external world completley independent of any subject's categorization of them.

Objects is the human representation of features in the external world. Dont confuse the representation with its cause.

Ya, that was the earlier conversation in the thread. We're now using the word percept where you're using object. Unless you have a better word for the item in the external world than "thing". I like using object for the internal representation, but we can't do that unless we get a better word for the thing because it's silly to call it that.

 

[fast]

That's a percept. The object is independent of that. The percept is dependent on both the subject and the object.

So what's wrong with using the substance of precept as an attribute of thing leading to the object? I'm not giving here because it's pretty clear that precept is represented in some determinable physical state.

I'm not sure what you're asking. There seems to be (at least to me) two different senses of the word, "thing", the narrow sense and the broad sense, both of which I eluded to early when discussing the implications between "some thing" and "something". Both the moon and hunger is something (as opposed to nothing), but only the moon is some thing, as hunger is not actually some thing we can (for instance) hold and touch--or remove and put on a table.

To me, I see no problem looking to that particular object in the sky we refer to as our moon and saying, "look at that thing". The moon is an object, and the moon is a thing. Either way, it is something, and so too is hunger, but it's neither an object or a thing (well, not a thing in the narrow sense).

One interesting thing (haha), about the moon is that it's mind-independent. In fact, it was here long before there were humans to perceive it and form mental precepts of it. It was here before we came and formed a language where we came to use the word, "moon" that has both a meaning and reference. The referent of the term is the actual object in the sky. The referent of the term was here long before the word. No word required...no percept required...no meaning required...no mind necessary. The moon was there (and still is). It's a thing. It's an object.

I perceive the moon. Yes, that would be me. Of course, there is no node making a direct link between my brain and the object high above our planet, and maybe that just highlights the complexity of perception, but I don't think it makes it false that I perceive the moon, so even if by chance there are electro-chemical processes that culminate in perceiving only percepts consequential of other biological processes, then careful should we be not to be too myopic in thinking about what it means to perceive something just because other processes are involved.

Percepts. An object? No. It's something, but just like the mind and hunger, it's not an actual object. But then again, neither are numbers, even if by chance they are abstract objects, as not even an abstract object is a kind of object. Careful (oh so careful) we must be when making inferences about the kinds of things things are based on the names ascribed to them.

 

[Juma]

What's "not so fast" about it? It's not something contrary to what I said. The groupings and limits are, of course, created by us but that's irrelevant to the fact that we're referencing external objects to apply those groupings and limits to - they're the internal percepts we build to reference the external objects.

Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

Yes in all cases. If we say "there are ten rocks there" or "there is one pile of rocks there", both are just our internal percepts used to categorize objects in the external world. There is matter out there in a certain form with certain properties. Whether you call it "a cloud of electrons" or "several rocks" or "one group of rocks" isn't important to the fact that they exist in the external world completley independent of any subject's categorization of them.

Objects is the human representation of features in the external world. Dont confuse the representation with its cause.

Ya, that was the earlier conversation in the thread. We're now using the word percept where you're using object. Unless you have a better word for the item in the external world than "thing". I like using object for the internal representation, but we can't do that unless we get a better word for the thing because it's silly to call it that.

That is plain silly. You just cant change the meaning of words like that. Green is a percept but is not an object. Objects are countables. Objects are groupable and distinct.

 

[fast]

Green is a color, and "green" is a word, and "green" is a green word.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What's "not so fast" about it? It's not something contrary to what I said. The groupings and limits are, of course, created by us but that's irrelevant to the fact that we're referencing external objects to apply those groupings and limits to - they're the internal percepts we build to reference the external objects.

Two adjacent stones is a group. Is the referenced reality a thing? Or two things?
The upper half of a haystack is an object, is the referenced reality a thing?

Yes in all cases. If we say "there are ten rocks there" or "there is one pile of rocks there", both are just our internal percepts used to categorize objects in the external world. There is matter out there in a certain form with certain properties. Whether you call it "a cloud of electrons" or "several rocks" or "one group of rocks" isn't important to the fact that they exist in the external world completley independent of any subject's categorization of them.

Objects is the human representation of features in the external world. Dont confuse the representation with its cause.

Ya, that was the earlier conversation in the thread. We're now using the word percept where you're using object. Unless you have a better word for the item in the external world than "thing". I like using object for the internal representation, but we can't do that unless we get a better word for the thing because it's silly to call it that.

That is plain silly. You just cant change the meaning of words like that. Green is a percept but is not an object. Objects are countables. Objects are groupable and distinct.

What do you mean green is not an object? Lightwaves suddenly don't have a frequency now or something? Our perception of green is the result of something physical in the external world hitting our retina.

Edit - God, I am in a pissy mood, aren't I? Ignore the tone.