Can there be an object without any subject?

[fast]

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.

I don't think I'd readily accept colors as objects.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think I'd readily accept colors as objects.

Why not? Light waves are things in the external world. When they hit an object, certain frequencies are absorbed and certain frequencies are reflected. They are there in the external world and doing things which we can perceive.

 

[fast]

I don't think I'd readily accept colors as objects.

Why not? Light waves are things in the external world. When they hit an object, certain frequencies are absorbed and certain frequencies are reflected. They are there in the external world and doing things which we can perceive.

My answer isn't a good answer, so at least in this instance, I'd understand your not being too quick to agree with me, but despite my lack of knowledge in this area (or memory from the facts of why I've come to hold the position), my experience in these types of discussions lead me to think of the dangers of accepting such things.

We cannot isolate the description of an objects color from the object itself without invoking color being a consequence of an action. Couple that with a tendency for extremism of thought to describe something as some thing on the basis of how something comes to be instead of a focus on what something actually is is problematic too.

That probably didn't make any sense. How about this: We can have a green object, and we can have an object, but we can't have a green, and although to talk about the color green is to talk about something, there is no actual thing to talk about, and even if a wavelength is in fact some thing that can be discussed, how exactly is the consequence of that wavelength which isn't itself a color therefore make it an actual object when reflected against something?

 

[ontological_realist]

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.

Thank you for your answer. I am interested in exploring certain ideas and trying to understand rather than take part in an ego match.

Of course I do not agree with your answer but at least you have honestly given your answer and that is great. That is all one can do.
.

 

[ontological_realist]

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

- - - Updated - - -

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

I am inclined to think that the universe( all that exists) is not in itself divided in to objects or things as humans (including human science) perceive, conceive or cognize it; and the understanding of science and laws of physics are only a subjective understanding and not objective truth as some people claim.
.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why not? Light waves are things in the external world. When they hit an object, certain frequencies are absorbed and certain frequencies are reflected. They are there in the external world and doing things which we can perceive.

My answer isn't a good answer, so at least in this instance, I'd understand your not being too quick to agree with me, but despite my lack of knowledge in this area (or memory from the facts of why I've come to hold the position), my experience in these types of discussions lead me to think of the dangers of accepting such things.

We cannot isolate the description of an objects color from the object itself without invoking color being a consequence of an action. Couple that with a tendency for extremism of thought to describe something as some thing on the basis of how something comes to be instead of a focus on what something actually is is problematic too.

That probably didn't make any sense. How about this: We can have a green object, and we can have an object, but we can't have a green, and although to talk about the color green is to talk about something, there is no actual thing to talk about, and even if a wavelength is in fact some thing that can be discussed, how exactly is the consequence of that wavelength which isn't itself a color therefore make it an actual object when reflected against something?

But we can have "a green". It's when a wavelength of light oscillates at a particular frequency. The particles / waves of light are things in and of themselves. They exist in the external universe completely independent of our perceptions of green. Now, we don't get those wavelengths unless the light bounces off of something and the non-green parts of the white light are absorbed by an object, so the colour is generally referred to as a property of another object rather than an object in and of itself, but the light itself is a real thing independent of what it bounces off of or anyone perceiving it.

 

[Juma]

My answer isn't a good answer, so at least in this instance, I'd understand your not being too quick to agree with me, but despite my lack of knowledge in this area (or memory from the facts of why I've come to hold the position), my experience in these types of discussions lead me to think of the dangers of accepting such things.

We cannot isolate the description of an objects color from the object itself without invoking color being a consequence of an action. Couple that with a tendency for extremism of thought to describe something as some thing on the basis of how something comes to be instead of a focus on what something actually is is problematic too.

That probably didn't make any sense. How about this: We can have a green object, and we can have an object, but we can't have a green, and although to talk about the color green is to talk about something, there is no actual thing to talk about, and even if a wavelength is in fact some thing that can be discussed, how exactly is the consequence of that wavelength which isn't itself a color therefore make it an actual object when reflected against something?

But we can have "a green". It's when a wavelength of light oscillates at a particular frequency. The particles / waves of light are things in and of themselves. They exist in the external universe completely independent of our perceptions of green. Now, we don't get those wavelengths unless the light bounces off of something and the non-green parts of the white light are absorbed by an object, so the colour is generally referred to as a property of another object rather than an object in and of itself, but the light itself is a real thing independent of what it bounces off of or anyone perceiving it.

Green is a property of an object, not an object in itself.
Wavelength is a property, not an object.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Green is a property of an object, not an object in itself.
Wavelength is a property, not an object.

I'm not following you on what you're basing that on. White light hits an object. Some frequencies are absorbed and some are reflected into the eye of a person standing ten feet away. I assert that within those ten feet, there are waves/particles of light oscillating at a frequency which is within the green range of the colour spectrum travelling between the object and the person. This light is something which has bounced off the object and not part of the object itself. It is what allows us to perceive the object, but is distinct from the object. I really don't see how they would solely be a property of the object anymore than a pinging sound is a property of a submarine because that's what happens when another submarine's radar bounces off of it.

You clearly disagree with that. What is the error?

I agree with you that the object has a property of green, in that it's structured in such a way that it reflects a green frequency of light and absorbs the rest. There is still this second separate thing (the actual light) which gets reflected by the object, though. The light was there before it hit the object and it was there after it hit the object and light in that frequency is called green. The light is distinct from the object and not a property of the object.

 

[Juma]

Green is a property of an object, not an object in itself.
Wavelength is a property, not an object.

I'm not following you on what you're basing that on. White light hits an object. Some frequencies are absorbed and some are reflected into the eye of a person standing ten feet away. I assert that within those ten feet, there are waves/particles of light oscillating at a frequency which is within the green range of the colour spectrum travelling between the object and the person. This light is something which has bounced off the object and not part of the object itself. It is what allows us to perceive the object, but is distinct from the object. I really don't see how they would solely be a property of the object anymore than a pinging sound is a property of a submarine because that's what happens when another submarine's radar bounces off of it.

You clearly disagree with that. What is the error?

I agree with you that the object has a property of green, in that it's structured in such a way that it reflects a green frequency of light and absorbs the rest. There is still this second separate thing (the actual light) which gets reflected by the object, though. The light was there before it hit the object and it was there after it hit the object and light in that frequency is called green. The light is distinct from the object and not a property of the object.

The light has a property, wavelength, that can be such that is perceieved as green. Green is a property of the light that reach the eye.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The light has a property, wavelength, that can be such that is perceieved as green. Green is a property of the light that reach the eye.

OK, good point. I actually realized that myself after I posted and hoped to be able to edit my post before you responded, but you came back too quick. Damn you and your cursed efficiency.

So, my answer to fast's question:

How about this: We can have a green object, and we can have an object, but we can't have a green, and although to talk about the color green is to talk about something, there is no actual thing to talk about, and even if a wavelength is in fact some thing that can be discussed, how exactly is the consequence of that wavelength which isn't itself a color therefore make it an actual object when reflected against something?

would be that no, we can't have "a green". When we talk about it, we're talking about the property of an object not an object itself. That's no more problematic to the topic, however, than saying that even though we can't have "a hard" we can talk about hard objects. Objects have properties and those properties exist in the external world.

 

[bilby]

OK, good point. I actually realized that myself after I posted and hoped to be able to edit my post before you responded, but you came back too quick. Damn you and your cursed efficiency.

So, my answer to fast's question:

How about this: We can have a green object, and we can have an object, but we can't have a green, and although to talk about the color green is to talk about something, there is no actual thing to talk about, and even if a wavelength is in fact some thing that can be discussed, how exactly is the consequence of that wavelength which isn't itself a color therefore make it an actual object when reflected against something?

would be that no, we can't have "a green". When we talk about it, we're talking about the property of an object not an object itself. That's no more problematic to the topic, however, than saying that even though we can't have "a hard" we can talk about hard objects. Objects have properties and those properties exist in the external world.

If you can't have "a hard", there is medication for that now.

 

[WAB]

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

- fast.

Had to isolate and repeat this.

 

[Juma]

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

- fast.

Had to isolate and repeat this.

The word "moon" refers to an object. That object refers to a feature of the real world.

The ability to single out some feature/aspect of the real world is an ability of the human body.

 

[WAB]

- fast.

Had to isolate and repeat this.

The word "moon" refers to an object. That object refers to a feature of the real world.

The ability to single out some feature/aspect of the real world is an ability of the human body.

Then I think we are in agreement? If not, I am truly puzzled.

Edit: Wait, I don't know what you mean by: That object refers to a feature of the real world.

How can an object refer to something? Usually, terms, words, refer to objects. No?

 

[Juma]

The word "moon" refers to an object. That object refers to a feature of the real world.

The ability to single out some feature/aspect of the real world is an ability of the human body.

Then I think we are in agreement? If not, I am truly puzzled.

Edit: Wait, I don't know what you mean by: That object refers to a feature of the real world.

How can an object refer to something? Usually, terms, words, refer to objects. No?

Mm is "represents" better to you?

 

[WAB]

Then I think we are in agreement? If not, I am truly puzzled.

Edit: Wait, I don't know what you mean by: That object refers to a feature of the real world.

How can an object refer to something? Usually, terms, words, refer to objects. No?

Mm is "represents" better to you?

I think this is a language/translation problem?

I don't think 'represents' works any better.

In my terminology, an object does not represent or refer to anything; on the contrary: words, terms, refer to and represent the object.

 

[bilby]

Mm is "represents" better to you?

I think this is a language/translation problem?

I don't think 'represents' works any better.

In my terminology, an object does not represent or refer to anything; on the contrary: words, terms, refer to and represent the object.

I think the word you are struggling for is 'is'.

'That object is a feature of the real world'

 

[Juma]

I think this is a language/translation problem?

I don't think 'represents' works any better.

In my terminology, an object does not represent or refer to anything; on the contrary: words, terms, refer to and represent the object.

I think the word you are struggling for is 'is'.

'That object is a feature of the real world'

No. Definitely not. Objects are what humans create to represent features of the real world.

 

[bilby]

I think the word you are struggling for is 'is'.

'That object is a feature of the real world'

No. Definitely not. Objects are what humans create to represent features of the real world.

So 'represents' works for you. But it seems clear that Loretta J. Hyde does not use the same meanings you do for these words.

I suspect we are straying into a purely semantic argument.

 

[WAB]

No. Definitely not. Objects are what humans create to represent features of the real world.

So 'represents' works for you. But it seems clear that Loretta J. Hyde does not use the same meanings you do for these words.

I suspect we are straying into a purely semantic argument.

Seconded.