I gave you a couple of examples of measuring instruments, in my examples. I used a tape measure, keeping things nice and simple so as to avoid unnecessary complications. And in the case of measuring time I used a clock. What more are you asking for? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not asking for anything. I am just stating that any act of reading measurements is involved with some sort of measuring tools. You cannot read size, weight or time with no instruments or measuring tools. The measuring instruments or tools become the part of reading measurements. You cannot separate them.

I wouldn't use a "speed detection machine" as an example, because I really don't know exactly how it works. I do however know that it works by radar, not "camera vision". So you are just continuing to demonstrate how wrong you are. — Metaphysician Undercover

A speed detecting machine is a good example for this case, because it integrates many different technical modules for measuring, reading and also decision making and processing in the device.

To take photos of the speeding cars, it uses camera vision, not the radars. Radars are used for mostly flying objects in the sky and aeronautical or military applications, not for the speed traffic detection.

Why and how does your ignorance on the technology proves that I am wrong?

Then what does "duration" as the thing measured, refer to, if not a length of time? And if it does refer to a length of time, how can there be a "length" of something which has no physical existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a good question. Measurement of time is always on change. That is, the changes of movement of objects. It is not physical length. It is measurement of the duration on the start and end of movement the measured objects.

Think of the measurement for a day. It is the duration of the earth rotating once to the starting measurement geographical point. It takes 24 hours. Think of the length of a year. It is the set point where the earth rotates around the sun fully, and returns to the set point, which the duration of the movement is 365 days.

Think of your age. If you are X years old now, it must have counted from the day and year you were born until this day. For this measurement, you don't need any instruments, because it doesn't require the strict accuracy of the reading / counting. However, strictly speaking, we could say that your brain is the instrument for the reading.

1. The person using the instrument reads the number from the instrument.
2. The instrument does not read anything from the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you could think of some measuring instrument, you will change your mind I am sure. Think of the speed detection machine for detecting cars driving over the speed limit on the road.

The machine monitors the road via the camera vision, and reads the speed of every passing cars. When it detects cars driving over the set speed limit in the machine, it will take photo of the car's number plate, and sends it to the traffic control authorities, from which they will issue a fine and warning letter with the offense points to the speeding driver.

If you think only humans can read, but machines and instruments cannot, then your reasoning seems in fault.

3. As I already explained, it is not "the value" of the object itself which is determined by the measurement, but the value of a specific measurement parameter, which we might call a property of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here, I feel that you seem to be trying to complicate the issue unnecessarily for some strange reason. This is a simple issue. Time doesn't have physical existence itself. It is measurement of perceived duration. Human mind perceives duration, but it lacks accuracy of the readings to be any use for science or even daily routine in the society, hence they must rely on the accurate time reading instruments. That is, right you guessed it I hope, clocks and watches.

All I can say, is that what "measurement" means to you is nothing like what it means to me. And since what you said looks nonsensical to me, I can tell you with a high degree of confidence, that you will never be able to make me understand what measurement means — Metaphysician Undercover

It is such a simple explanation to understand for anyone. But you seem to be determined refusing to see it. Why is it so difficult to see it? Why do you bring in such a bizarre ideas of "measurement" (property of property?) of time into the discussion?

I'm sorry Corvus, but this line, ("It is reading of the objects in number") makes no sense to me at all. How could a person read an object, unless it was written language like a book. Are you suggesting that you, or an instrument, could look at an object and see numerals printed on it, and interpreting these numerals forms a measurement? That's craziness. — Metaphysician Undercover

It sounds crazy to me if someone cannot read numbers on the speedo meter or watch. Do you mean you can only read English words, but not numbers?

Yikes! You seem to believe in that craziness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was trying to make you understand what measurement means. But it seems not going well. Well is it time to go to sleep?

The point I made is that if we adhere to a strict definition of "objective", meaning of the object, then measurement is not objective. This is because measurement assigns a value to a specified property, it does not say anything about the object itself. Assigning the property to the object says something about the object, but assigning a value to the property says something about the property. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your confusion seems to be coming from the fact that you misunderstands the idea of "measurement". Please read the proper definition from my previous post. It is not property of property. Measurement is always in numeric value of the objects read by the instruments.

So measurement is twice removed from the object. It is not a property of the object, but a property of the property. It is an idea applied to an idea, therefore subjective. — Metaphysician Undercover

Measurement is not idea. It is reading of the objects in number. Numeric value read by the instruments i.e in case of time or duration, it would be stop watch or clock. The instruments are set for the universal reading methods in numeric value, which is objective knowledge on the objects.

Well, "objective" has many meanings. Here, you imply that if two people agree, then it is "objective". That would imply a meaning of "objective" which is based in intersubjectivity. So, when I said the measurement is "subjective", this is not inconsistent, or contrary to your use of "objective" here. — Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstood my point. I never said or implied, just 2 folks agreeing on something is objective. My idea of objectivity means - widely or officially accepted by scientific tradition or customs in the world.

You ignored the point I made. "Size", "weight", etc., are not "the object", those terms refer to a specific feature, a property of the supposed object, and strictly speaking it is that specific property which is measured, not the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Size, weight, distance and duration has no meaning without measurements for them. I have never said they are objects. Again you seem to have misunderstood my points.

Alas, "cuz I said so", isn't good Philosophy. — LuckyR

You seem to be taking things too personally, not reading the post properly. What I said was, copying and pasting internet definitions with no reflection and thoughts into the forum posts, and blindly worshiping the information as some biblical truth, is not philosophy. Nothing to do with because LuckyR said. I don't care who said what.

And moreover, if your read OP carefully, this thread is not about extending or hastening someone's life. It is about arguments against suicide.

But I believe that no one should control other people's life. Only thing a decent human being must do, is to help other human being's life by caring and saving them making better, if they can, no matter under what circumstances.

The measurement is never objective, because it is always entirely conceptual, property of the subject. Nor is the measurement something we say about the object itself, because measurement is applied to a specific parameter (property) of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Measurement is agreed way of setting and counting the figures of objects, be it size, weight or time. If it is not objective, then everyone will have different way of measurement on days, hours, minutes, distance, size, weight etc, which will make Science and daily life chaotic?

Uummm... okay, except that isn't the common definition of life. In fact my review of the 20 definitions in Websters, doesn't find that particular nuance. — LuckyR

I wouldn't be impressed with anyone just copying over the common definitions from the internet, and pastes to forum posts. No. That is not Philosophy.

My definition of life is a reflected and meditated points from the common definitions, which is not grossly strange, weird, disagreeable or meaningless. Anyone with common sense would agree with my definition of life. If one cannot find any agreement or understanding from my definition of human life, I would find the person with a very peculiar set of mind, or must be some sort of internet information worshiper.

Then the measurement, which is subjective, is taken to be "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't the measurement objective? The feel, knowing and perception of time is subjective, but any measurements are objective i.e. by watch or clock, isn't it? Your 1 hour must be same as my 1 hour, and for the folks in the down under, and the folks in the whole world.

It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination. — unimportant

If Buddhism is a religion, then without the supernatural and religious elements, it wouldn't be a religion.
The supernaturals and religious elements can be taken in as symbolic phenomenon for beliefs and interpretations. Sufferings too, can be symbolic.

For a billionaire, not having another 100 billions could be felt as suffering. Some folks believe they are reincarnating every morning when they wake up from sleep.

And if we accept that there are many things which has no explanation, for example, your own birth (how were you born as you, not Socrates?), then we could accept we don't know anything about death and reincarnation, and all the supernatural stories?

Put another way, if you believe that the colour red exists in the external world outside the mind, then how do you know that a burning pain does not exist in the external world outside the mind? — RussellA

You know this by your instinct. It is obvious. The red is in the traffic light out in the street. The burning pain is on your body, and you feel the pain in your brain.

Are you saying that when you see the colour red you have to think about it for a while and then make the judgement that you are seeing red rather than green, for example. — RussellA

Judgement can be made instantly when seeing the red. You don't require thinking to make the judgement. There are different types of judgements. If you are a judge for dancing competition, maybe you need time to think to judge who was the best competitor.

However, if you are seeing the red from the traffic light, then you don't need thought to judge it is red, hence you must stop. This type of judgement is made instantly, because it is a judgement on the simplest direct perception which you have been accustomed to for many years.

You don’t think that the burning pain exists outside of a mind. Why do you think that the colour red exists outside of a mind? — RussellA

The burning pain and colour red are totally different things. The pain is your feeling, but the colour red is in the space out there. The perception of the colour red in your mind is your judgement, nothing to do with the colour red out there in the space.

How do you know that I am telling the truth? How do you know what is in my mind? — RussellA

I don't know what is in your mind, but I can understand what you are saying. You are seeing the red. You are feeling a burning pain. It could be true or it could be a lie. But that is a different topic.

The meaning of a symbol has to be learnt. — RussellA

Yes, we have learnt our language from the early age, and can communicate our minds with others. That is all we have. We don't have access to any others' mind apart from our own. I know you are seeing red, because you said you are seeing red. What type of red, or how bright or dark red, I don't know. I could listen to your further explanation on what type of red you are seeing, and try to imagine what you are seeing. But it would be my own imagination of red I will be seeing in my mind, not yours ever.

The Indirect Realist can make judgments about a mind-external world using “inference to the best explanation” within Epistemic Structural Realism. — RussellA

It sounds like Indirect Realists are imagining that because they are IRists, things must exist inside their minds, when it is just memory, imagination and thinking about the objects in their head. The external objects such as chairs, tables, cars and postbox and colour of reds don't exist in your mind. You are just thinking, imagining and remembering about them.

I am not sure if Indirect Realism is a meaningful thing. We see the real objects in front of us, and interact with, access and use them. When we think, imagine and remember them, when the objects are not present in front of us, we are just imagining, remembering and thinking about them.

In Structural Realism, the Indirect Realist makes judgements as much from relata as from relatum. — RussellA

Seeing red from the traffic light, and stopping is a similar type of perception and judgment / action, as getting pinched on your cheek by your wife, and screaming "ouch" from the pain. It doesn't involve any thought process, reasoning or relationships.

admittedly rare, cases where a logical argument can be made that it could be a reasonable choice. — LuckyR

If we define life as the most precious and unique experience for the individual who is living, and also life can be suffering, then ending it abruptly by own choice or others' recommendation due to some suffering or any other whatever reasons sounds utterly irrational and deranged act committed out of some sort of illusion.

In a traffic light what is important is as much the relationship between the lights, top, middle, bottom, as the colours of the lights, red, amber, green. The rule to stop if the top light is on is as useful to the driver as the rule to stop when the red light is on. Perhaps more useful, as even if some people may not be able to distinguish red from green they are unlikely not to be able to distinguish top from bottom. — RussellA

We are only discussing driving license and traffic lights because you seem to think sometimes red colour exists in your mind. Hence I gave inductive reason how the license is issued to only to people who have normal mind set and normal perception. If the DVLC doubts that the person has not normal perception capability and normal mind, then they will not issue the license.

For traffic lights, people must be able to perceive red light as red, and green light as green. It must be direct perception. You don't have time to judge going through the relationship between the lights, and figure out which light must be top or bottom of which light.

Judgement to drive or stop the car can be made instantly from direct perception of the colour of the lights and reflex system in the brain with no thought process involved.

Doesn’t the fact that a driving licence makes no reference to the driver’s belief in either Indirect or Direct Realism show that an Indirect Realist (phenomenal experience is indirectly determined by mind-external objects) can function in ordinary life just as well as a Direct Realist (phenomenal experience is directly determined by mind-external objects). — RussellA

Driving licenses are issued under the untold presumption that the drivers will think the colours of the traffic lights are in the traffic lights, not in the drivers mind. Indirect or Direct realism doesn't come to the issue.

The traffic light system will successfully operate regardless of whether the driver is an Indirect or Direct Realist. — RussellA

It won't work at all, if the driver thinks that the red colour is in his mind, not in the traffic light. Because he thinks that the red colour is in his mind, he will not stop causing tragic accident.

The red light is always in the traffic light, not in the drivers' mind in reality. Hence indirect realists are wrong, and shouldn't be allowed to drive? :D

I think the point being made is that the same wavelengths of light can cause different colour experiences in different individuals (e.g. because of different biologies). — Michael

Sure, I know what he means. But my point was that I don't know how other folks would perceive red post officebox, or wave length 700nm at all. All I know is that other folks perceive red, when they say that they see red. What is in their perception or mind, I have no clue whatsoever.

From inductive reasoning, under the same condition of lighting, and when the same red was seen by ordinary folks, it should appear the same red to all of them. Otherwise the traffic light system wouldn't work.

Therefore, when I look at a wavelength of 700nm, I know that within our language game, regardless of my particular mental perceptions, I can say “I see the colour red”. — RussellA

Yes, you can. But I don't know what you are actually seeing in your mind. I can only guess you are seeing same colour as when I see "red".

What is a "mind-independent world"? Where is it? — Corvus
All around us. — RussellA

Why do you call it "mind-independent"? Why is it not just a world?

Yes, in our language game a wavelength of 700nm has been named “red”. Therefore, when you look at a wavelength of 700nm, by inductive reasoning, you know that the name of the colour you perceive is “red”, regardless of what colour you actually perceive in your mind. — RussellA

I am not in the language game, but I know what red colour means. I am not sure about "wave length 700nm". I know what it means, but I don't feel it is very meaningful to me unless I am working on some optical technology projects or studying clinical psychology. In daily life, no one will understand what you mean by wave length 700nm.

by inductive reasoning, you know that the name of the colour you perceive is “red”, regardless of what colour you actually perceive in your mind. — RussellA

I didn't mean I know the colour red by inductive reasoning. I meant that I know the alien will know colour red is same as wave length 700nm by reading the internet info. Because I have seen many folks acquire knowledge from the internet, and believe they are all true.

For knowing colour red as red is not reasoning. It is a direct perception and knowledge from the visual sensation.

But then, we are not ordinary folks. — RussellA

We are ordinary folks as far as seeing the postbox is concerned. We are not equipped with some super vision eyes, or we are not aliens from some other galaxies, I am sure.

However, this is regardless of what is in our minds. I may perceive the postbox as green and you may perceive the postbox as orange. But we both agree that in our language game “the postbox is red". — RussellA

I know I perceived the postbox as red, but I don't know what you perceive. The only reason I know you perceive it as red, is because you claim that you perceive it as red.

In what sense is a wavelength of 700nm the colour red? — RussellA

Because some dude invented wave measuring meter, and scaled the numbers for 7000nm for colour red. No other reason than that. It could be 007nm or 2026nm. It is not some apriori idea or concept or number. It is just random reading that some dude attached to it, and published so the other folks would use it for saying the colour red in different way. You could say the Venus is a morning star when saw it in the dawn, or call it an evening star when saw it in the dinner time.

How do you know that colour exists in a mind-independent world? — RussellA

What is a "mind-independent world"? Where is it?

If an alien from the Andromeda Galaxy sees a wavelength of 700nm, are you saying that you know that they will also perceive the colour red? How do you know? — RussellA

If the alien has been surfing the internet, and saw the colour red is wave length of 700nm, and thought it was true, then he would claim that wave length 700nm is colour red.. I know it by inductive reasoning.

That's the issue with non face to face communication, better if unspoken insinuations are spelled out. — LuckyR

I have demonstrated my points on the issue in logical manner. Now it is your turn to demonstrate and present your points on the issue.

We both look at the same postbox and the same wavelength of 700nm enters our eyes. I see the colour red and you see the colour purple. How do we decide whether the postbox is actually red or purple? — RussellA

When you see colour of the postbox, and say it is red, and when I see it, and say purple. This is a a very peculiar case. Ordinary folks don't come across this type of problems in daily life.

But when it happens (which I doubt very much unless one of us are colour blind), it must be concluded that our perception of colours of the objects are personal judgement, rather than perception. You have already perceived the colour of the postbox, and it appears "red" to you, and you are making your personal judgement "The postbox is red."

For me the postbox appears "purple", hence I claim "It is purple", which is just a personal judgement on the content of my perception.

The colour is not in your mind or in my mind. It is on the postbox. Instead of talking about Direct and Indirect Realist, we need to know that there are different type of perceptions, and whether the perceived objects do exit in flesh in front of the perceiver, and can be interacted with, accessed to, and used by the perceiver.

I am now looking at my guitar which is red colour in front of me. I will never say the redness of the guitar is in my mind. It is on the guitar. And because it appears red to me, I say it is a red guitar.

Under the different lighting it may appear different colour to me. I will still say it is a red guitar. But it appears blue under the blue lighting. It is my personal judgement on the visual sensation.

am well aware that I am directly looking at the colour red.

As an Indirect Realist, — RussellA

Then, why are you an indirect realist?

'what makes life worth living'. — unimportant

This is a hard question to answer. Suppose everyone has different answers depending on what their thoughts are on their own life.

Although I appreciate your thoughtfulness. — T Clark

Thank you for your appreciation. :)

I'll take your silence on my last question as acknowledgement that an argument can be made for shortening one's time of suffering in certain limited circumstances. — LuckyR

I thought the answer to that question was implied in my posts.

I am interested in hearing any objections to this 'proper' form of direct realism — Clarendon

I think I have addressed this point some time ago to @RussellA.

It depends on the mode of our perception - how we perceive the object.

When I am seeing a guitar in front of me, and can touch it, pick it up and play it, it is directly I am perceiving or interacting. But when I am thinking about it, imagining it, or remembering it in my mind, it is indirect perception I am having. The real flesh guitar is not available for me - I cannot touch it, pick it up or play it, but I can still see it by imagining, remembering or thinking about it.

So, both indirectly and directly we perceive and interact with objects. It depends on the existence and availability of the object in flesh we are perceiving or interacting.

Here is a simplest example, that we all heard in the elementary school.

1) The litmus paper turned red, when immersed into acid.

This is a knowledge from an observation. But after many experiments and tests, Science will use inductive reasoning from 1), to draw a universally true statement or law, which says,

2) Acid turns litmus red.

That is what Science pursues, not the 1), which is just a general knowledge from observations.

The OP doesn't want to discuss this topic further, so I am out from this thread. Thank you.

I was seeking some knowledge on Astronomy. I bought a telescope, and watched the Moon surface in order to have some knowledge on the Moon. Is that a Science?

I know how to ride a bike. My knowledge on how to ride bike has increased since I bought a new bike. Is my knowledge on the bike a Science? Surely not. Knowledge can be objective and also subjective. But knowledge is not something Science or Metaphysics pursues.

Science seeks more than knowledge. It seeks verified truths and laws on the operations and nature of the universe.

Used to think? Well now that you're smarter and more experienced, what do you think now? — LuckyR

My view has not changed.

As to your last paragraph, I'm curious what the source of information you're using to derive your conclusion as to why folks "seem to be motivated" as you describe. — LuckyR

It comes from my own experience having witnessed my father's death. He was suffering from illness in the hospital. He didn't last too long, and passed away. I still feel if he is still alive, and is here on the earth, it would be better than the death. Because it would be possible to have some conversation with him. Death makes impossible to even have a chat with the dead. The death never ends. It continues eternally.

Also I have noticed the doctors in the hospital and my step mother, wanted, and recommended ending the care for my dying father, so she could grab the inheritance, and get on with her own life, and the doctors wanted get the fees paid as soon as possible, and move on the to next suffering patients. They didn't have any sympathy for the dying person, and had no care for life.

I am not interested in participating in a discussion on this at the moment. — T Clark

OK, fair enough.

As I indicated, I don’t think this is the correct threat for that discussion. If you want to start a new one, I will participate. — T Clark

The OP's purpose seems to be discussing how we see these kinds of presuppositions fitting to our own understanding of how the world works.

My purpose in starting this discussion is 1) to discuss the specific presuppositions described and 2) to see how other people see these kinds of presuppositions fitting into their own understanding of how the world works. — T Clark

It seems to be much relevant to the OP, and help understand the topic better, if we were to discuss the meaningfulness of the absolute presuppositions, and how they relate to, and support Science.

I don't see a point starting a new OP for it. It would be redundant and there wouldn't be much new material in it.

This thread is about identifying the absolute presuppositions of pre-1905 modern science, not justifying the value of metaphysics. — T Clark

Sure, so I thought we could discuss on the meaningfulness of "absolute presuppositions" in critical way. The content of the absolute presuppositions seem very much metaphysical in nature anyway.

Are you saying astronomy isn’t science? We’ve had discussion here before about what’s included in science and what isn’t. They’re never very fruitful. — T Clark

No, that wasn't what I was saying at all. I said that in order to hint you that knowledge of something can be subjective - not much to do with Science. Knowledge can be private. It is justified belief. Science wouldn't want to pursue it, if it were a rigorous Science.

I don’t see it that way. Science looks for knowledge—not the same as truth. And as Collingwood wrote: — T Clark

Knowledge sounds too subjective and loose. Science is a rigorous subject which pursues verified truth on reality and universe. My knowledge on Astronomy is rudimentary. I wouldn't say it has much to do with Science.

But I know that some Scientists want to find out the truth if there are planets with life and civilization like ours out there somewhere in the space or in another galaxy.

then what nature of usefulness and frutfulness could they expect to have from the presuppositions? — Corvus

You haven't answered my main question to you yet.