I think that's not quite correct. — Janus

It maybe too simplistic for me to say "all we ever see is light" as an observation of optics, so point taken. But my general point is that, just like we don't directly see magnetism, we don't directly sense anything. So drawing a distinction between seeing an apple versus not-seeing magnetism when two magnets are operating on each other, doesn't work.

I see this argument to be using an empirical observation to refute empiricism.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I was going to say the same thing. But I've already been reported for trolling and for assuming ill-intent. Welcome to the club! — Fire Ologist

I wouldn't take the threats of flagging here seriously. The moderators certainly won't.

I think the point of the OP is that there is more going on that what we can be conscious of directly sensing, from which it would seem to follow that there is more to objects than just a bunch of perceived qualities.

that there is more going on that what we can be conscious of directly sensing, from which it would seem to follow that there is more to objects than just a bunch of perceived qualities. — Janus

True, but I don’t see magnetism as a good example of more going on. It’s perceptible. So Arcane’s argument supporting the assertion that there is more going on than just a bunch of perceptible properties based on a distinction between seeing apples and (somehow not explained in the post) distinguishing magnetism doesn’t work.

:up: :strong:

Feel free to disagree, dear reader. — Arcane Sandwich

I guess I can't disagree. I would say that much of science, especially physics, is composed of objects and relationships that are not directly perceived. We need in most cases technological devices to be able to perceive their reality. And not only that, but much of the theoretical work specializes in theorizing according to the available technology. Today knowledge is completely subsumed in different types of mediations.

Hegel would say that we live the development of knowledge through the work of negativity.

I can't disagree with your comment. It sounds like something that I would agree with, even if I wouldn't phrase it like you phrased it. But that's inessential. So, it looks like we're in agreement here. :up:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Or, what would be an example of science done with anything not perceived? — tim wood

Astrophysics at the exact moment of the Big Bang. You need both quantum physics and general relativity for that. And they're incompatible in relation to that problem.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If not, a counterexample would be welcome. — tim wood

Ok, how about geology, then? The core of the Earth has not been observed, as of 2025. Is it unobservable? Maybe, maybe not. However, scientists (geologists, in particular) know exactly what's in there.

I would not say that. For example, when two particles collide, what we see is information in a computer. The one that perceives is the machine, but that is not perceiving, it is interacting. Information here is a key element, getting information is not perceiving in my opinion, there is a whole chain of deferral that makes and generates information, or signification. This means that significance or information transcends perception. Thus we must say that we know the world not only as we perceive it, but as we obtain significance or information from it.

:100: :fire:

Thank you for such a valuable contribution to this Thread. I mean that, honestly.

True, but I don’t see magnetism as a good example of more going on. It’s perceptible. So Arcane’s argument supporting the assertion that there is more going on than just a bunch of perceptible properties based on a distinction between seeing apples and (somehow not explained in the post) distinguishing magnetism doesn’t work. — Fire Ologist

The attraction is perceptible—the magnetic field is not—it is a theoretical explanation. Strict empiricism, pace Hume, claims that causation of any kind is not perceptible and is hence merely an inference made on account of the experience of constant conjunctions of observed effects and events.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That's a fallacy. Has any geologist seen the center of the Earth? Of course not.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yet they know that there's a very high temperature inside the Earth's core, beneath other levels, such as the mantle and the crust. And they know that there are no goblins or dinosaurs inhabiting the Earth's core.

Can you please just try to make better posts? Like Just a request, feel free to ignore it. You don't have to agree with me, just express your disagreement in a better way. Is that too much to ask of you, specifically? If "yes", then ignore this request.

presumably geologists - read instruments, the readings being perceived. — tim wood

And to a surprisingly high resolution...



Towering structures in Earth’s depths may be billions of years old
and



The mysterious, massive structures in Earth’s deep mantle

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

We're not at the agree/disagree line yet. I keep asking you to be more precise and exacting in your comments, because our subject matter requires such. But you don't seem to understand the need, and the lack thereof makes your comments nonsensical. — tim wood

What's the precise and exacting solution to the Sorites Paradox, then? Let's start with that. I favor a solution that is not semantic in nature: indeed, I believe in ontological vagueness. There are objects that have vague composition, for example. Think of an ordinary object like a hammer. There's a point in its sorites series for composition in which ontological vagueness occurs.

No one sees the earth's core, but there are apparently a number of sophisticated tests that allow qualified persons to make statements about it. That is, they look at dials and meters and various outputs, which is what is perceived, and then they think about it. And I imagine you're aware that recent popular science reports some interesting conclusions about the earth's core from their researches. — tim wood

This part of your post lacks substance.

But our topic is perceivable v. unperceivable. I hold that if nothing is perceived, then nothing happens. That settled, we can get back to how, if, or whether substance is the same as the object. You may define it that way and that's fine, but then the test will be if that understanding is consistent with what is generally understood. — tim wood

Ok, cool. So let's do a scientific experiment to test your hypothesis, then.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What's the precise and exacting solution to the Sorites Paradox, then? Let's start with that.
— Arcane Sandwich
You're argumentative without substance or discipline. As such, useless. Stick to the topic. Or, if you want to change it, then make it clear you're changing it. That is, how, exactly is the problem of the heap relevant? — tim wood

Just curious: what's your IQ? You're under no obligation to answer, obviously.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.