Yes, for maybe the fifth time now, properties are simply ways that things are, characteristics they have. — Terrapin Station

Ok, and "yellowness" might be a property of my experience while perceiving an object reflecting a certain wavelength?

So how could there be anything that isn't some way or other? — Terrapin Station

Easily, every "way or other" is a judgement we make sufguced with our habits, moods etc. So nothing is some way or other outside of that we perceive it to be, and as @StreetlightX has pointed out, the evidence from the neuroscience of perception is very much that we do not perceive anything absent of local and variable influences from our mental state and environment.

Easily, every "way or other" is a judgement we make — Isaac

So you believe that if no people existed, objects would be in what--some quantum, indeterminate state?

Ok, and "yellowness" might be a property of my experience while perceiving an object reflecting a certain wavelength? — bongo fury

Right, it's a property of that object reflect that wavelength of EMR, and it's also a property of your experience per se (which is what qualia are).

So you believe that if no people existed, objects would be in what--some quantum, indeterminate state? — Terrapin Station

Possibly, yes. But at the moment I'm more inclined to think of reality as a heterogeneous sea of stuff (where maybe that stuff is not matter but whatever fundamental thing physics might find beneath matter). Certainly no 'tables'.

Why do you say 'browness' is a property of the table? Surely by your own terms, with nominalist, at best it's a property of 'the bit of the table I happen to be looking at'. Why impart it to the rest of the table, unless you're treating 'the table' as a platonic object?

Possibly, yes. But at the moment I'm more inclined to think of reality as a heterogeneous sea of stuff — Isaac

Why?

Possibly, yes. — Isaac

No, no. If there are no people (or perceivers, rather) then there is no perception. It's a bad question ('how would one perceive it if one were not around to perceive it?'. It's very silly, don't fall for it).

Right, it's a property of that object reflect[ing] that wavelength of EMR, and it's also a property of your experience per se (which is what qualia are). — Terrapin Station

Ok. One more thing, for now. This property... is it meaningful to ask: what is it? E.g., I want to ask: is it a disposition or ability to reflect the certain wavelength?

Why? — Terrapin Station

Because that's the only way I can see objects being now, and I don't think the absence of people will make any difference.

No, no. If there are no people then there is no perception. It's a bad question ('how would one perceive it if one were not around to perceive it?'. Very silly). — StreetlightX

OK, I see what you're saying. I didn't really answer the question as "what difference do people make" so much as "what model do you personally have of reality" (a model which, for me is obviously unaffected by people because I took him to be asking about what it is I think people's perception acts on). Does that make any sense at all?

No, no. If there are no people then there is no perception. — StreetlightX

lol it's not a question about perception. You know, you're yet another person here in the "horrible reading comprehension" crowd.

Because that's the only way I can see objects being now, — Isaac

???

Why would that be the only way you can see objects being? How would you even see that?

lol it's not a question about perception. — Terrapin Station

True. But you want to say something about perception by asking it. Still silly.

I didn't really answer the question as "what difference do people make" so much as "what model do you personally have of reality" (a model which, for me is obviously unaffected by people because I took him to be asking about what it is I think people's perception acts on). Does that make any sense at all? — Isaac

Yeah. I would only be careful: we are of reality, and don't stand outside of it looking in. "If no people existed, objects would be...?" is still a strange question. "If there are no clouds, objects would be...?" - one has to wonder: what even is this question? How does the one relate to the other? It's loaded, but badly.

Why would that be the only way you can see objects being? How would you even see that? — Terrapin Station

'See' as in conceive of, bad choice of words in the circumstances. I can't conceive how matter could not exist at all (what would we base our perception on), but I can't conceive of it divided up into objects in any sense at all when it's clear that such object division (and existence) can be so readily altered by our mental processes.

True. But you want to say something about perception by asking it — StreetlightX

No. It's not anything about perception.

we are of reality, and don't stand outside of it looking it. "If no people existed, objects would be...?" is still a strange question. — StreetlightX

Yeah, so I guess my 'model' is inevitably flawed by being one without me in it, yet without me there'd be no place to put the model. I still find some need to have one though, flawed as it may be. Do you manage to do without?

Ok. Then it's just irrelevant. That's fine too.

Yeah, so I guess my 'model' is inevitably flawed by being one without me in it — Isaac

Not flawed! It tells us something about the world that it must be 'modelled' in this way (in any way): it is 'objectively the case' that you must include yourself in your model - this is an opening, not a limit. Anyway, sorry to be obscure. We're far away from perception now, and I don't want to derail.

I can't conceive of it divided up into objects in any sense at all when it's clear that such object division (and existence) can be so readily altered by our mental processes. — Isaac

So let's consider something like a comet orbiting the sun. We've got a chunk of rock--water, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane ices, mixed with dust. Then we've got interstellar space where there's very sparse amounts of hydrogen and helium gas, etc. Then we've got the sun, a very dense aggregation of hydrogen and helium gases in a plasma state, etc.

How would our mental processes alter that?

Ok. Then it's just irrelevant. That's fine too. — StreetlightX

It's not irrelevant to what properties are.

It tells us something about the world that it must be 'modelled' in this way (in any way) — StreetlightX

Yes, that's what interests me in the models people have, it's basically how I became (peripherally) interested in philosophy.

Anyway, sorry to be obscure. We're far away from perception now, and I don't want to derail. — StreetlightX

Yeah, fair enough, it was an interesting departure.

Oh and by the way, apparently I gather that...

you're yet another person here in the "horrible reading comprehension" crowd. — Terrapin Station

So, welcome to the club, honoured to have you with us.

So let's consider something like a comet orbiting the sun. We've got a chunk of rock--water, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane ices, mixed with dust. Then we've got space where there's very sparse amounts of hydrogen and helium gas, etc. Then we've got the sun, a very dense aggregation of hydrogen and helium gases in a plasma state, etc.

How would our mental processes alter that? — Terrapin Station

They already have. "comet", "space", "sun". None of these separate things are really separate. We've decided that spatio-temporal patterns are going to be the thing which separates one object from another, as opposed to, say, ecology, information, systems etc.

None of these separate things are really separate. — Isaac

We're not saying something about whether they're really "separate."

But you're saying that they're not really a lump of water, carbon dioxide, etc. ices and then a far less dense patch of hydrogen and helium gases, etc., right?

But you're saying that they're not really a lump of water, carbon dioxide, etc. ices and then a far less dense patch of hydrogen and helium gases, etc., right? — Terrapin Station

"Water" and "carbon dioxide" are still separations we've imposed, why stop one type and begin another based on the arbitrary shape of its molecules. Even some pretty basic chemistry (isotopes etc) shows how this distinction breaks down on analysis.

based on the arbitrary shape of its molecules. — Isaac

You don't think that there's really a shape of molecules, do you? Or molecules for that matter, shapeless or not.

You don't think that there's really a shape of molecules, do you? — Terrapin Station

No, I'm aware it's just a model. I'm trying to get at the arbitrariness of making the distinction on that basis, not present a scientifically accurate account of it.

I'm asking you about something with scientific accuracy though.

So how do you think we get to creatures that impose structure on anything via their consciousness?

We have a completely uniform sea of whatever, with no properties, and then what? How would a creature appear amidst that, much less one with consciousness?

Maybe you're religious after all?

We have a completely uniform sea of whatever, with no properties, and then what? How would a creature appear amidst that, much less one with consciousness? — Terrapin Station

The fact that a "creature" has appeared is again, just a human artefact, as is 'conciousness'. All that has happened is that stuff has interacted with stuff (even 'stuff' is difficult to get out of). No 'creatures' have appeared outside of us, to whom would they 'appear'?

Let me ask you this, if a 'creature' has appeared with consciousness, where do we stop, and some other creature with some other conscious start?

The fact that a "creature" has appeared is again, just a human artefact, — Isaac

But at least we're here, right? How?

All that has happened is that stuff has interacted with stuff ( — Isaac

How? According to you it's a completely uniform sea of property-free stuff. How would it "interact," especially without having/exhibiting any properties?

Do you think that humans just appeared whole cloth out of nothing, as the first thing that existed?

Let me ask you this, if a 'creature' has appeared with consciousness, where do we stop, — Isaac

Our bodies are us. That's our boundary, fuzzy though it may be on the edges on a microscopic level.

But at least we're here, right? How? — Terrapin Station

No, there's no 'we'. That too is just something inside our minds.

According to you it's a completely uniform sea of property-free stuff. How would it "interact," especially without having/exhibiting any properties? — Terrapin Station

I quite specifically said I imagine a heterogeneous sea of stuff, not a uniform one. I imagine variations in many possible fields, some of which we arbitrarily select to distinguish objects over, others we ignore, others still we probably can't even detect.

Our bodies are us. That's our boundary, fuzzy though it may be on the edges on a microscopic level. — Terrapin Station

I can convince your mind that the table is a part of your body in less than two minutes.