Bertrand Russell wrote "That which many different thoughts of whiteness have in common is their object, and this object is different from all of them". — RussellA
Behind the Blind Spot sits the belief that physical reality has absolute primacy in human knowledge, a view that can be called scientific materialism. In philosophical terms, it combines scientific objectivism (science tells us about the real, mind-independent world) and physicalism (science tells us that physical reality is all there is). Elementary particles, moments in time, genes, the brain – all these things are assumed to be fundamentally real. By contrast, experience, awareness and consciousness are taken to be secondary.
“what do you think of “whiteness” — Mww
white is not an object in the world. — Mww
The world is the existence of things, so the simultaneous thing and no-thing cannot be a condition of the world — Mww
Metaphors are never sufficient for knowledge; only the literal will suffice. — Mww
White light is an object in the world
I agree that white is not an object in the world, as it is an adjective, though I would still argue, as I wrote before, "white light is a physical object"
An object is white if it emits electromagnetic radiation composed of a fairly even distribution of all of the frequencies in the visible range of the spectrum, ranging from 750 to 400nm
Consider red light. Red light is electromagnetic radiation of 750nm. Red light is a physical thing that is visible, tangible and relatively stable in form.
White light is the set of violet light, blue light, cyan light, green light, yellow light, orange light and red light. Such a set is visible, tangible and relatively stable in form.
The definition of an object is anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
IE, it follows that white light fulfils the definition of an object. — RussellA
Many of the discoveries of modern quantum physics defy logic, for instance the 'wave-particle' nature of subatomic bodies. — Wayfarer
So I dispute that as a general matter that we do see what 'things really are', even if we know enough to know a tree or an apple when we see one. — Wayfarer
“what do you think of “whiteness”
— Mww
If I hear the word "whiteness", in my mind I link the physical word "whiteness" with several physical objects in the world, — RussellA
I could invent a logical system whereby a single identity can exist and not exist at the same time — RussellA
The question is why is one invented logical system accepted and used rather than another. The answer is that logical system which corresponds with what has been discovered in the world. — RussellA
I would say that to date we have no literal knowledge of anything, meaning that there is no alternative but for the metaphor to suffice. — RussellA
As the saying goes "Getting knowledge about something is like making a map of a place or like travelling there. Teaching someone is like showing them how to reach a place". — RussellA
I wonder how you would account for the occurrence of extra-spectral colors in the purple-magenta range, for - not being part of the (visible) electromagnetic light spectrum - they don't seem to satisfy your requirement for being "objects in the world". — javra
Modern realism is the conviction that objects exist independently of any mind............Scholastic realism believes that universals exist 'in the mind of God'. The way I would interpret that is to say that universals are what is real for any rational intelligence, but that they're only perceptible by the mind — Wayfarer
What are objects
The whole is the relationship between its parts
An object such as an apple is the relationship between its parts
The parts of an an apple have a physical existence in the world.
The question is, does the whole, the object, the apple, have an ontological existence in the world. — RussellA
For example, there must be an ontological relation between my pen and the Eiffel Tower, between an apple in France and an orange in Spain, between a particular atom in the Empire State Building and a particular atom in the Taj Mahal - none of which makes sense. — RussellA
Laws exist and these will be broken/violated if nonphysical minds interact, causally, with physical systems. — Agent Smith
Objects such as apples ontologically exist in my mind but not in the world. — RussellA
What could it mean to "see things as they really are"? Are you not making an unwarranted assumption that things "really are some ultimate way". Why should that be necessary? — Janus
Because that is what the subject of philosophy is concerned with. That is the basis of the idea of 'appearance and reality' which is the fundamental preoccupation of philosophy since the subject began. — Wayfarer
So if apples do not exist on account of being wholes, nothing exists — Olivier5
In Newtonian physics, an atom in the Taj Mahal must by necessity attract an atom in the Empire State Building, — Olivier5
Your posts are written from the perspective of uncritical realism, starting with the assumption that the sensory domain possesses inherent and unquestionable reality, when in fact that is what is at issue in philosophy. — Wayfarer
Your posts are written from the perspective of uncritical realism, — Wayfarer
Don't think I agree.
A physical world exists independently of us
I agree with Critical Realism in a belief in Ontological Realism, that a physical reality exists and operates independently of our awareness, knowledge, or perception of it. — RussellA
Critical Realism (CR) is a branch of philosophy that distinguishes between the real and the observable. The real can not be observed and exists independent from human perceptions, theories, and constructions. The world as we know and understand it is constructed from our perspectives and experiences, through what is observable. Thus, according to critical realists, unobservable structures cause observable events and the social world can be understood only if people understand the structures that generate events.
I believe that what I perceive in my senses is an effect of a prior cause, and that prior cause is a world independent of me as an observer. — RussellA
I believe that what I perceive in my senses is an effect of a prior cause, and that prior cause is a world independent of me as an observer. — RussellA
That is 'transcendental realism', the commonsense pre-theoretic view that objects in space and time are things in themselves or possess an innate reality independently of the mind. — Wayfarer
So, you believe that if you as an observer ceased to exist, the world would go with you? — Janus
If all awareness in the cosmos were to somehow miraculously vanish - from that of the lowly bacteria to us, to that occurring in any other place in the universe irrespective of its degree of development; even that applicable to panpsychism if one so maintains the world to be - what, if anything, would remain of the world as we in any way know it? — javra
I understand by the transcendental idealism of all appearances the doctrine that they are all together to be regarded as mere representations and not things in themselves, and accordingly that space and time are only sensible forms of our intuition, but not determinations given for themselves or conditions of objects as things in themselves. To this idealism is opposedtranscendental realism, which regards space and time as something given in themselves (independent of our sensiblity). The transcendental realist therefore represents outer appearances (if their reality is conceded) as things in themselves, which would exist independently of us and our sensibility and thus would also be outside us according to pure concepts of the understanding. (CPR, A369)
The transcendental idealist, on the contrary, can be an empirical realist, hence, as he is called, a dualist, i.e., he can concede the existence of matter without going beyond mere self-consciousness and assuming something more than the certainty of representations in me, hence the cogito ergo sum. For because he allows this matter and even its inner possibility to be valid only for appearance– which, separated from our sensibility, is nothing –matter for him is only a species of representations (intuition), which are call external, not as if they related to objects that are external in themselves but because they relate perceptions to space, where all things are external to one another, but that space itself is in us. (A370)
Again, you're picturing 'a world in which there are no mind' - the early earth, drifting silently through the empty void. But that is still a concept, an idea, ordered according to the intuitions of space and time. The point about realism - whether scientific or naive - is that it supplies that human perspective, situates the concept in a temporal and spatial matrix - and then doesn't realise it is doing so. Whatever we say about 'reality' assumes a perspective, but then forgets that it is actually supplying the perspective. It is analogous to wearing a pair of spectacles, without which nothing can be seen, and then looking through them, and demanding 'show me where in this picture there are spectacles'. — Wayfarer
If we believe the science it tells us that the universe did indeed exist before any organisms appeared on the scene. — Janus
The empiricist view is that the universe exists irrespective of whether it is observed or not. In one sense that is true, but the empiricist overlooks the role of the observing mind in the representation of the Universe and so what it means to say the universe exists. — Wayfarer
I believe I've already accounted for this in my post via some, as of yet to be clarified, form of panpsychism. — javra
Regardless of that, what it means to say things exist independently of percipients, is that they are there to be perceived, and there regardless of whether or not they are perceived. — Janus
In like enough manner, the physical world (to not even mention individual object in it) occurs fully independently of me, or you, of any other individual psyche. But in the absence of all awareness, including that pertaining to psyches, there would be no such thing as a world. — javra
Are you positing a collective psyche or something like that? — Janus
If all awareness in the cosmos were to somehow miraculously vanish [...] what, if anything, would remain of the world as we in any way know it? — javra
What we understand as physical is a matter of definition and is constantly changing — Wayfarer
the mind's contribution to everything asserted about the mind-independent world. — Wayfarer
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.