It does, because it's no inference. It's an observation. Inferences are not observations. — Terrapin Station
First off, that's not at all the subjective/objective distinction that I make. — Terrapin Station
I also believe that "exists even when it's not being observed" is not at all part of any conventional definition of "objective."
The distinction that I make is this, which I've spelled out before, and I'm pretty sure in a post addressed to you (in another thread):
Subjective=something that obtains in minds.
Objective=something that obtains extramentally.
So we observe something that's not a mind.
I don't see why you would think the movement of the Earth relevant. Do you not say of the statue "it's not moving"? I'm sure you do. It would be very strange of you to start telling people that it was moving at hundreds of kilometers a second. And it would certainly be strange if you were to say "it's not moving, but only in a metaphorical sense". — Michael
If the statue is fixed to the earth, and the earth is moving, then in what sense is it true to say that the statue is not moving? — Metaphysician Undercover
Then what are you saying?When I say that the statue isn't moving I'm not saying that its location in the universe isn't changing... — Michael
I don't see why we need objective things to exist for the word "objective" to mean what it does (and so for the word "subjective" to mean what it does). Words can be meaningful even if they don't refer to real things.
If we define an objective thing as a thing that continues to exist even when it's not being seen and a subjective thing as a thing that exists only when it's being seen, and if nothing continues to exist when it's not being seen then nothing is an objective thing.
To say that if nothing continues to exist when it's not being seen then those things that exist only when they're being seen (subjective things) are "really" objective things just doesn't make sense. It's a straightforward contradiction. — Michael
Objective is simply what exists. — Harry Hindu
They have this emotional investment in the existence of their mind and doubt anything beyond that. If that is the case, then they have defined their mind out of existence because in their view - their mind is reality. They are simply using a different term (mind) for something for which there is already a term (reality).
Which does NOT say anything about the issue of whether things exist when one isn't observing them. That's the conventional definition, which is consistent with mine. The distinction is simply whether something is mental versus whether it is extramental--whether it's in or "of" minds versus whether it exists outside of minds.Not in the sense that's being used here, which as explained in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "refers to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)." — Michael
Which does NOT say anything about things existing when one isn't observing them. — Terrapin Station
The distinction is simply whether something is mental versus whether it is extramental--whether it's in or "of" minds versus whether it exists outside of minds.
Yes. That is not the same thing as "they continue to exist when we're not aware of them."Objective things are things that exist independent of any conscious awareness of them (via perception, thought, etc.). — Michael
Yes. That is not the same thing as "they continue to exist when we're not aware of them." — Terrapin Station
That's because logically, things can exist that are independent of any conscious awareness of them, but contingently, those things cease to exist when we're not aware of them.
Not necessarily. Assume that things like toasters exist and that they're not just mental phenomena. Now, let's assume that the toaster is separated from an observer so that nothing the observer does has a causal affect on it in any manner. The observer sees the toaster from a distance. The observer looks away, and completely coincidentally, when the observer looks away, the toaster disappears. Nothing logically precludes this. However, the toaster was in no way dependent on the observation of it. It just so happened that at the moment the observer looked away, the toaster "popped out of existence."What? It's exactly the same thing. If a thing exists independently of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.) then it continues to exist even when we're not aware of it. — Michael
What's the P that is being both asserted and denied, so that it amounts to P & ~P?This seems like a straightforward contradiction — Michael
Not necessarily. Assume that things like toasters exist and that they're not just mental phenomena. Now, let's assume that the toaster is separated from an observer so that nothing the observer does has a causal affect on it in any manner. The observer sees the toaster from a distance. The observer looks away, and completely coincidentally, when the observer looks away, the toaster disappears. Nothing logically precludes this. However, the toaster was in no way dependent on the observation of it. It just so happened that at the moment the observer looked away, the toaster "popped out of existence." — Terrapin Station
What's the P that is being both asserted and denied, so that it amounts to P & ~P?
I wrote "popped out of existence" so there's no ambiguity if you actually read what I wrote. Realism has nothing to do with believing that objective things can't pop in and out of existence. You'd only believe that because for whatever reasons, you've misunderstood what realism is.The former isn't relevant, and the latter isn't realism, and so would mean that the toaster isn't an objective thing. — Michael
Where in the post in question did I assert P then?That the thing exists even when we're not aware of it. — Michael
I wote "popped out of existence" so there's no ambiguity if you actually read what I wrote. — Terrapin Station
Realism has nothing to do with believing that objective things can't pop in and out of existence. You'd only believe that because for whatever reasons, you've misunderstood what realism is.
Where in the post in question did I assert P then?
How, per the example I described, do you believe that the toaster is dependent on conscious awareness of it?It the thing pops out of existence when it isn't seen then it doesn't "exist as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.)" — Michael
How, per the example I described, do you believe that the toaster is dependent on conscious awareness of it? — Terrapin Station
Yes, I'm completely serious. It pops out of existence, as I stipulated, completely coincidentally when we happen to not look at it. So how is that dependent on conscious awareness. That it popped out of existence had nothing to do with the observation in the example I stipulated. There was no causal connection--I specified that. It was a complete coincident--I specified that, too.
So where is the dependence? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.