An axiomatic paradox?

[Brant Gaede]

If the observed object existed before the observer first observed it, then it existed without an observer.

OK, to prove an object exists without an observer let's assume it existed without an observer. Talk about "possible irreversible harm to the prefrontal lobe of the brain".

Was the astronomer who first saw Pluto hallucinating? If not, Pluto existed before he saw it. An icy body does not pop into existence all of a sudden.

GS demands "proof" claiming knowledge of science. Science is not about "proof." Science is about observation, evidence, interpretation: data to hypothesis to theory. An epistemologist can claim "proof" out of his suppositions, but science is about reality and the scientist looks for falsification and application. That's why scientists don't worry about whether Pluto was there before it was observed--a silly waste of time.

--Brant

Edited September 8, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

When you say an object exists what you really mean? It means (according to science) that our various senses function in such a way that we "register" something we call an object. The question is not did it exist before we registered it, which like Brant says is a silly waste of time. The point is, in order to discuss it at all we must be able to register something and this requires an observer.

[kiaer.ts]

Proof? If GS would like to walk blindfolded through a bad neighborhood we can see whether or not he gets mugged by non-pre-existent muggers.

What is interesting here is that scientists do ask what was happening with the Pluto system before it was discovered. Its orbit is relatively unstable, and its interactions with Neptune (see Triton) show that it was likely captured into its present orbit over time by repeated interaction with Neptune.

[tjohnson]

Yes, but they don't ask whether it "existed", only philosophers do that.

[Mindy Newton]

Yes, but they don't ask whether it "existed", only philosophers do that.

You know, your whole position involves a stolen concept. "Observation."

=Mindy

[merjet]

When you say an object exists what you really mean? It means (according to science) that our various senses function in such a way that we "register" something we call an object. The question is not did it exist before we registered it, which like Brant says is a silly waste of time. The point is, in order to discuss it at all we must be able to register something and this requires an observer.

Translated, "To be is to be perceived." - George Berkeley, philosopher

[Ellen Stuttle]

When you say an object exists what you really mean? It means (according to science) that our various senses function in such a way that we "register" something we call an object. The question is not did it exist before we registered it, which like Brant says is a silly waste of time. The point is, in order to discuss it at all we must be able to register something and this requires an observer.

Translated, "To be is to be perceived." - George Berkeley, philosopher

Te-he. I've been thinking of exactly that quote as a synopsis of GS's Idealism disguised as supposed Empiricism.

Ellen

___

[worldlogicleague]

... Science is not about "proof." Science is about observation, evidence, interpretation: data to hypothesis to theory. An epistemologist can claim "proof" out of his suppositions, but science is about reality and the scientist looks for falsification and application. That's why scientists don't worry about whether Pluto was there before it was observed--a silly waste of time.

--Brant

... they don't ask whether it "existed", only philosophers do that.

Science builds theoretical models to predict the existence of unobserved things all the time. Then they try to construct experiments that might confirm their prediction.

Here is one example.

From http://www.aspera-eu.org/index.php?option=...3&Itemid=98 :

Physicists and astronomers have been looking for 75 years to find evidence of the existence of the hypothetical dark matter particles. The DAMA collaboration published new results claiming a detection, confirming its previously published studies. ...

The results of DAMA are independent of the various theoretical models predicting dark matter. And since no other dark matter experiment has detected the modulation yet, the hunt is still going on

Does it make sense to say dark matter will magically come into existence by massive coincidence at the exact moment they happen to observe it?

Or does it make sense to say dark matter is unobserved but hypothetically out there existing, and someday it might be observed?

The latter is the position of modern science. Its a major part of the enterprise of modern science to theorize about the possible existence of objects, not yet observed, and then conduct experiments to look for these hypothesized existences, that they predict exist, but have not yet been observed.

It was the well spent time of theorists producing theories about dark matter that might exist, but has not yet been observed, that drove the well spent 75 years trying to devise and conduct experiments that will detect this theorized existence of dark matter, that has not yet been observed.

It seems that you are talking about the scientific principle that things are not "confirmed to exist" without proper scientific experiments that show it so. But this is very different then saying that they don't exist when they are not observed, which is not science's position. Predicting that unobserved objects exist is a big part of what scientific theorists do.

Edited September 8, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[Ellen Stuttle]

There's a brief series of posts on one of the induction threads related to GS's claims that science shows us we can't say external reality exists independent of our observations thereof.

I'll cross-post the sequence of comments here, since it's directly relevant to the conversation in process.

[...] the evidence is produced within our nervous system from stimuli, and that's what's external. In other words, evidence represents an interaction between the nervous system and it's environment.

And how do you know that there are stimuli and that there is an environment -- or a nervous system either -- on your views?

Ellen

___

And how do you know that there are stimuli and that there is an environment -- or a nervous system either -- on your views?

We know through science.

Um, yeah. As Merlin quipped to you long ago: All the rules change when you enter a science lab. Adding to the quip: Suddenly you can know by relying on the means (making sensory observations, generally employing in the process objects which you say you can't know exist independently of a nervous system producing them through perceiving) which moments before you said you couldn't arrive at knowledge using.

You wipe the epistemic ground out from under the very method of exploring (scientific) you want to use to give you knowledge -- and then you declare that that method does the trick.

You play by a double set of rules, GS.

Ellen

___

___

[worldlogicleague]

Since you are a logician who champions the categorical syllogism could you prove using only the 19 forms of the categorical syllogism* the following:

All dogs are animals. Therefore the head of a dog is the head of an animal.

Keep in mnd that the classical categorical syllogism involved only individual variable and constants, unary predicates and their negations, the quantifiers all and some. The 19 classical categorical syllogisms did not touch binary relations or higher order relations in their full generality.

Please show all steps explicitly.

If you succeed at doing this, perhaps you can prove the theorem of Pythagoras which is Prop 47 in Book I of Euclid, solely by classical categorical syllogisms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually I agree with you. You seem to be saying that I have claimed that traditional categorical logic is the be all and end all of logic and the final word. I never said that. Classical logic is just the base of the pyramind of logic, and has its uses in daily life as Veatch showed. I'm only saying along with many others that students of the 21st century need to move from unorganized non-critical thinking without any logic knowledge to organized critical thinking with fundamental, basic logic knowledge if they want to get the good jobs in the knowledge based, high tech 21st century, and if the US economy is to succeed in the highly competitive global market. Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Ford, Oracle, Adobe, Hewlett Packard, Cisco, AT&T, Intel, Lego, Lenova, Verizon, the National Education Association, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor all agree and are actively working to bring it about. See http://21stcenturyskills.org, their Partnership, for more. This is why I say we are witnessing the dawning of the 2nd Age of Reason, which this time completely revolves around these economic and complex problem solving issues of the 21st century.

(back to topic)

Edited September 9, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[tjohnson]

I admit I'm having a difficult time getting this point across, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding. What we call 'objects' are actually abstractions in our nervous system, does anyone deny that? Or do you believe that the apple you see is actually inside your brain? You must accept that all we have available to us are abstractions. If you cannot accept this there is no point in going further.

[tjohnson]

Translated, "To be is to be perceived." - George Berkeley, philosopher

No, I don't think so. It's not that simple.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I admit I'm having a difficult time getting this point across, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding. What we call 'objects' are actually abstractions in our nervous system, does anyone deny that?

What I call "objects" are not abstractions in my nervous system. Suppose a brick falls and hits you on the head, is that an abstraction in your nervous system? Is the computer on which you type your replies an abstraction in your nervous system? If so, how does it send a message to your presumed readership? (To be consistent, of course, you'd have to say that all of us are also abstractions in your nervous system. I decline that status.)

Or do you believe that the apple you see is actually inside your brain?

No, I believe that you're mucked up with not understanding the difference between how you see and what you see. (And how would the apple's being inside your brain enable you to see it?)

You must accept that all we have available to us are abstractions.

"Abstractions" from what, GS? The very form of your question contradicts your own contentions.

If you cannot accept this there is no point in going further.

Very well.

Ellen

___

Edited September 8, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[tjohnson]

I am not saying there are not forces, energies, etc. external to our nervous system, in fact it is these that we manufacture "objects' from.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I am not saying there are not forces, energies, etc. external to our nervous system, in fact it is these that we manufacture "objects' from.

What do you manufacture your own body from, and your own nervous system -- or are they not "objects"? If not, what are they?

Ellen

___

[Paul Mawdsley]

I think I understand. GS is right. He is just assessing the phenomena contained in experience from a context with the least assumptions. He is not making the metaphysical claim, "To be is to be perceived." He is not making a metaphysical claim at all. He is just saying what we can know from an existential position without making philosophical assumptions. All other statements, philosophical or scientific, presuppose mental constructs such as causation, time, space, etc. in generating a given context of thought. GS is not making these presuppositions.

He is paradoxically right relative to everyone else. Arguing he is wrong from a context he has not assumed is a mistake. Given his pre-philosophical and pre-scientific context, does what he says fit the evidence and is it internally consistent? See if you can argue against his point on this level. Otherwise, all anyone is saying is: "My context is right and yours is wrong, nah, nah!" But then again, isn't this what most arguments amount to anyway?

Paul

Edited September 8, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[tjohnson]

What do you manufacture your own body from, and your own nervous system -- or are they not "objects"? If not, what are they?

I don't understand this question. Our bodies are made of the same thing everything else in the universe is; matter, energy, etc.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Given his pre-philosophical and pre-scientific context, does what he says fit the evidence and is it internally consistent?

What "pre-scientific context," Paul? GS is claiming that science has shown that the world we observe is manufactured by our nervous systems. And what could "evidence" possibly mean in the context? Internally consistent, what he says most certainly is not. Total solipsism would be the only viewpoint from which he could be internally consistent (except for the problem that total solipsism can't be internally consistently adhered to.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

What do you manufacture your own body from, and your own nervous system -- or are they not "objects"? If not, what are they?

I don't understand this question. Our bodies are made of the same thing everything else in the universe is; matter, energy, etc.

Are your body and nervous system "objects"? Do you see your own hands, arms, legs (without looking in a mirror)? If, when you see an apple, you're manufacturing in your nervous system the object which you call an apple, aren't you also manufacturing your own hands, arms, legs when you see them?

Ellen

___

[tjohnson]

Suppose you were blind. Would a ruby be "red" to you? Would a blind person say that "redness" is an essential property in the definition of a ruby? A blind person manufactures an object from the energies of a ruby but it is not the same object that a sighted person produces. Without the channel for visible EM energy they must rely on other receptors that register different types of energy.

[tjohnson]

Are your body and nervous system "objects"? Do you see your own hands, arms, legs (without looking in a mirror)? If, when you see an apple, you're manufacturing in your nervous system the object which you call an apple, aren't you also manufacturing your own hands, arms, legs when you see them?

The process of producing abstractions is the same whether it results in "apples" or "appendages".

[Ellen Stuttle]

Suppose you were blind. Would a ruby be "red" to you? Would a blind person say that "redness" is an essential property in the definition of a ruby? A blind person manufactures an object from the energies of a ruby but it is not the same object that a sighted person produces. Without the channel for visible EM energy they must rely on other receptors that register different types of energy.

No, a ruby wouldn't be (perceived as) "red" if a person were blind. But it wouldn't not exist. It would have a shape and hardness which agree with what's perceived visibly. If someone steals the ruby and hides it in a box where it isn't being perceived by anyone using any sensory modalities, according to what you're saying it's vanished from existence. (If that's not what you mean, I suggest that you need to give some serious attention to how you're expressing your point.)

Another example: Suppose you walk into a table in the dark, not seeing it. Did the table not exist before you collided with it? If you're blind and can't see the resultant bruises, are you not injured?

I wish you would answer the question if you manufacture your own body and nervous system.

Ellen

___

Edited September 9, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

You cross-posted your answer to the "your body" question while I was posting. You wrote:

The process of producing abstractions is the same whether it results in "apples" or "appendages".

So then your own body, according to you, is an "abstraction" manufactured in your nervous system (which itself, would you grant, you can't perceive unless your skull is cut open and you're looking at your brain in a mirror)? So suppose you're lying in a coma and you have no sensory awareness (or active notion of a nervous system). Do you only exist if someone else happens to be looking at you (or otherwise sensing your body)? But the existence of other people has to be, according to you, an "abstraction" in your nervous system....?

Do you really not see (meaning intellectually recognize) any problem with this picture?

Ellen

___

[tjohnson]

I'm afraid we are on such different wavelengths that no communication is possible.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Given his pre-philosophical and pre-scientific context, does what he says fit the evidence and is it internally consistent?

What "pre-scientific context," Paul? GS is claiming that science has shown that the world we observe is manufactured by our nervous systems. And what could "evidence" possibly mean in the context? Internally consistent, what he says most certainly is not. Total solipsism would be the only viewpoint from which he could be internally consistent (except for the problem that total solipsism can't be internally consistently adhered to.)

Ellen

There is a context in which your description of GS's perspective makes sense. The idea is that we have direct access to no reality but the reality of our own consciousness (now we have moved from Berkeley to Descartes). We are existentially alone and solipsistic. We need to connect dots, make categorical or causal assumptions, to realize the existence of another consciousness. From the context of an island consciousness, experience is "manufactured" from building blocks of qualia in the form of perceptions, imaginings, thoughts, feelings, etc. The objects of awareness are isolated patterns in the flow of consciousness. These patterns in the flow of consciousness are the "evidence" on which any knowledge is built.

Once we assume that there is a connection between the objects we have isolated in the flow of awareness and a reality that exists beyond our own consciousness, we have made the first step into metaphysical and scientific thought. With more assumptions about identity, causation, time, space, etc., we can connect the dots (science) or create systematic models of the nature of existence as a whole (metaphysics), which can be turned back to account for the nature of consciousness.

This is not a claim for "total solipsism." It's a claim for the evolution of consciousness out of the solipsism that we can imagine we were born with. The context of a new born, or the best we can conceive of it in thinking about the stages of the development of consciousness, is what I mean by "pre-scientific context." The value of this context is to be found in its ability to illuminate what Jung called "our presuppositions."

Paul