Can there be an object without any subject?

[fast]

Okay, so whatever it is providing this data is what we call the galaxy. This thing that provides data that we call a galaxy is classified as an object.

No. It is not an object. It is not a thing. It is not even an it.

The word, "galaxy" is a noun, and a noun refers to a person, place, or thing. If it's not a thing, then maybe it's what, a place? Or, are there no places either?

Hmmm, sorry for the tone ... It's late.

 

[Juma]

Oxford Dictionaries says that an object is, "A material thing that can be seen and touched" from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/object .

Philosophically, it has an object as, "A thing external to the thinking mind or subject." and "A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed".

There is no debate about what an object is with how the OP was put.

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.

You are still using your own definition. We already have a definition for what you claim is actually the object; it is called "the perception" of the object.

You can apply a new definition as long as there isn't one for it already. Do you know what I am saying?

That is obviously not a valid definition. Do you really mean that a molecule, a neutron star or a galaxy isnt an object?

I am completely confused by what you are saying here. I am the one posting the definition that says that an object exists outside of the mind.

It seems to be you that doesn't believe in an outside world.

I definitely believe in an outside world. But I also believe that we project way to much of what really just goes on in our mind back on the outer world.

You cannot see or touch a galaxy. The concept is created by human minds from the knowledge about the data received from measurements of the universe. The universe obviously behaves so that it is useful to us to speak about galaxies. The object corresponding to each falaxy is just our projection of the concept of galaxy vack onto the behaviour of the universe.

There is a difference between a galaxy and our concept of a galaxy. One in not a mental phenomena whereas the other is. We should always be careful not to confuse a concept with what a concept is a concept of.

Our sprachspiel works. We can successfully communicate things about the behaviour of the universe. That doesnt mean that it is a good ground for analysing the relations between behavior of the universe/objects and percepts.

 

[Juma]

No. It is not an object. It is not a thing. It is not even an it.

The word, "galaxy" is a noun, and a noun refers to a person, place, or thing. If it's not a thing, then maybe it's what, a place? Or, are there no places either?

Hmmm, sorry for the tone ... It's late.

It is not accessible to language. Language require someone using it.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so whatever it is providing this data is what we call the galaxy. This thing that provides data that we call a galaxy is classified as an object.

No. It is not an object. It is not a thing. It is not even an it.

Okay, you seem to be in pretty deep. I hope you are not in too deep (seriously).

Anyway, are you saying that there is an entity that is neither something nor nothing?

 

[WAB]

Somebody shoot me

 

[fast]

We don't define things.

1) we can't define things.
2) we don't define things we can't define.
Therefore 3) we don't define things.

Are you joking? If not, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about the important distinction between terms and referents.

Take for instance the term "cat". If I mention the word, then the discussion is not about a purring feline we can pet and feed, etc. We're talking about a three-letter word with one vowel and two consonants we can spell, write, and has a definition, etc.

On the other hand, if I use a referring word, then I'm not talking about the word but rather what's being referred to.

It's a common mistake (yet a mistake nevertheless) to speak of things that we define, but the things of the world are not something which can be defined. What we define are words--not that which they may refer to.

 

[Juma]

No. It is not an object. It is not a thing. It is not even an it.

Okay, you seem to be in pretty deep. I hope you are not in too deep (seriously).

Anyway, are you saying that there is an entity that is neither something nor nothing?

No. Entities are something.

What I try to say is that we can only talk about about stuff with a mental representation. As a computer only can handle the structs, variables and objects in the system.

It is really not weird at all.

 

[fast]

Somebody shoot me

Ooh, good example to contrast to make a point. When we combine "some" and "thing" and get "something", what we wind up with has a broader meaning than what we had before the combining. Try it with "some" and "body". Last time I checked, bodies don't shoot people. Minds don't either btw. People shoot people--and possibly disgruntled South Carolinian deer.

 

[ryan]

Are you joking? If not, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about the important distinction between terms and referents.

Take for instance the term "cat". If I mention the word, then the discussion is not about a purring feline we can pet and feed, etc. We're talking about a three-letter word with one vowel and two consonants we can spell, write, and has a definition, etc.

On the other hand, if I use a referring word, then I'm not talking about the word but rather what's being referred to.

It's a common mistake (yet a mistake nevertheless) to speak of things that we define, but the things of the world are not something which can be defined. What we define are words--not that which they may refer to.

Okay now I think I know why 99% of conversations on here turn into arguments.

You are looking at this too closely. It is already built into the meaning of the term "the definition of X" that we are simply associating words with an object outside of the mind. That goes without say and doesn't need to be explained.

 

[fast]

Okay, you seem to be in pretty deep. I hope you are not in too deep (seriously).

Anyway, are you saying that there is an entity that is neither something nor nothing?

No. Entities are something.

What I try to say is that we can only talk about about stuff with a mental representation. As a computer only can handle the structs, variables and objects in the system.

It is really not weird at all.

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

 

[ryan]

Okay, you seem to be in pretty deep. I hope you are not in too deep (seriously).

Anyway, are you saying that there is an entity that is neither something nor nothing?

No. Entities are something.

What I try to say is that we can only talk about about stuff with a mental representation. As a computer only can handle the structs, variables and objects in the system.

It is really not weird at all.

Everyone already knows this. "Object" refers to the thing that the word/s represent. People don't normally think that the word being thought of is the object itself.

 

[Juma]

I'm talking about the important distinction between terms and referents.

Take for instance the term "cat". If I mention the word, then the discussion is not about a purring feline we can pet and feed, etc. We're talking about a three-letter word with one vowel and two consonants we can spell, write, and has a definition, etc.

On the other hand, if I use a referring word, then I'm not talking about the word but rather what's being referred to.

It's a common mistake (yet a mistake nevertheless) to speak of things that we define, but the things of the world are not something which can be defined. What we define are words--not that which they may refer to.

Okay now I think I know why 99% of conversations on here turn into arguments.

You are looking at this too closely. It is already built into the meaning of the term "the definition of X" that we are simply associating words with an object outside of the mind. That goes without say and doesn't need to be explained.

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.

 

[fast]

I'm talking about the important distinction between terms and referents.

Take for instance the term "cat". If I mention the word, then the discussion is not about a purring feline we can pet and feed, etc. We're talking about a three-letter word with one vowel and two consonants we can spell, write, and has a definition, etc.

On the other hand, if I use a referring word, then I'm not talking about the word but rather what's being referred to.

It's a common mistake (yet a mistake nevertheless) to speak of things that we define, but the things of the world are not something which can be defined. What we define are words--not that which they may refer to.

Okay now I think I know why 99% of conversations on here turn into arguments.

You are looking at this too closely. It is already built into the meaning of the term "the definition of X" that we are simply associating words with an object outside of the mind. That goes without say and doesn't need to be explained.

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.

You can still be classy about it.

 

[ryan]

Juma and Fast, I will agree that many people (I was one of them) seem to think that things they see are actually what is there, for example, colors.

But when it comes to language, we are all pretty in agreement.

 

[Juma]

No. Entities are something.

What I try to say is that we can only talk about about stuff with a mental representation. As a computer only can handle the structs, variables and objects in the system.

It is really not weird at all.

Everyone already knows this. "Object" refers to the thing that the word/s represent. People don't normally think that the word being thought of is the object itself.

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

 

[fast]

Okay now I think I know why 99% of conversations on here turn into arguments.

You are looking at this too closely. It is already built into the meaning of the term "the definition of X" that we are simply associating words with an object outside of the mind. That goes without say and doesn't need to be explained.

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.

Even the notion of "outside of the mind" is a confused notion. There's actually a spatial dimension in regards to a brain, but to imbue as such to one's mind is also (I believe) a mistake. (Controversial, I know).

 

[ryan]

Okay now I think I know why 99% of conversations on here turn into arguments.

You are looking at this too closely. It is already built into the meaning of the term "the definition of X" that we are simply associating words with an object outside of the mind. That goes without say and doesn't need to be explained.

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.

???

 

[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.

Even the notion of "outside of the mind" is a confused notion. There's actually a spatial dimension in regards to a brain, but to imbue as such to one's mind is also (I believe) a mistake. (Controversial, I know).

What is outside and inside of the mind has nothing (or very little) to do with space. It is a systems boundary, not space boundary.

 

[ryan]

Okay now I think I know why 99% of conversations on here turn into arguments.

You are looking at this too closely. It is already built into the meaning of the term "the definition of X" that we are simply associating words with an object outside of the mind. That goes without say and doesn't need to be explained.

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 assumption. I am sure you have to use terms as or more controversial than "object" just to talk about an object.

 

[ryan]

Everyone already knows this. "Object" refers to the thing that the word/s represent. People don't normally think that the word being thought of is the object itself.

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.