Prof. George Walsh on Rand and Kant

[kiaer.ts]

You may find this hard to believe, but I don't mind being wrong (other than the normal biological resistance everyone has). I do mind someone not understanding what I mean, attributing a wrong meaning to what I say, then saying I'm wrong and crowing triumph.

Who are you talking about, Michael? You said this about me yesterday, without justification, and implied that I was not arguing in good faith, but had some motive other than the point at hand. No one else seems to think I was doing anything other than making a valid point. Now you repeat it. Please refrain from imputing such motives. A philosophical disagreement is not a personal attack.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I call it as I see it.

And I still hold you are not interested in the idea (in this case), but in something else within the "control others" realm of interaction.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

I call it as I see it.

And I still hold you are not interested in the idea (in this case), but in something else within the "control others" realm of interaction.

Michael

Uh, yeah . . .

[Philip Coates]

> A philosophical disagreement is not a personal attack.

Ted, I've followed Michael's posts for years. He always gets his little personal zingers and accusations in there sooner or later.

Then he's all innocent, "I just call 'em like I see 'em" and wonders why people get pissed off.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... and wonders why people get pissed off.

Phil,

No I don't.

Michael

[Starbuckle]

In what Harden quoted, Kelley does not distinguish clearly between the form of perception and the thing being perceived. Color as a form of perception requires the operation of sensory organs. But insofar as the color conveys information about external objects being perceived, what makes color is an object that exists independently of any perception. Sensory forms are products of an interaction. Kelley does clearly distinguish between form and object in his book. In any case, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation is indeed nonsense. Electrons exist independently or not, and there is no way except "independently" that things in the world of whatever kind can exist, whether or not we are justified in calling them "entities" in a primary sense. The fact that we have means of observing electrons or inferring their existence provides evidence that they do exist, not that they can't exist unless we observe them. What can't exist without observations are observations.

If Kelley really said in private correspondence or anywhere that "Even if entities do exist only in relation to our means of perception..." then this is no problem, his wording implies a grotesque muddle. What can exist only in relation to a means of perception is the form in which we perceive the entities. Entities exist regardless of the form in which they are perceived. Radically different forms give us the same, overlapping or complementary information about the same thing. Bake an apple pie, and then see whether radically different forms of perception--smell, sight, taste--enable you to know that the pie is ready to eat. Given the clarity and precision of his book The Evidence of the Senses, I suspect either that Kelley is being misquoted or that he did not intend to say what he seems to be saying.

[BaalChatzaf]

Our detection of electron and other subatomic particles is theory laden.  What we perceive is the output of a device which taken together with a theory or  model that asserts the output is from an electron (or other subatomic particle)  constitutes a "detection" of the particle. If we didn't have a theory we would not be talking about electrons and other non-perceivable objects.  

 

[Peter]

On 5/9/2019 at 2:56 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Our detection of electron and other subatomic particles is theory laden.  What we perceive is the output of a device which taken together with a theory or  model that asserts the output is from an electron (or other subatomic particle)  constitutes a "detection" of the particle. If we didn't have a theory we would not be talking about electrons and other non-perceivable objects.  

 

Non-perceivable is an odd phrase. Of course we cannot see gravity or subatomic particles and we need to have a theory about them, but hasn't their predictability and validity through experimentation "proven" their existence? "Hmmm. Gravity. Let me think about that," says the astronaut or passenger on those diving cargo planes who spend thousands to *experience* something very real: near weightlessness and a lack of gravitational sensation. Light is very perceivable but an individual photon is not. Gravity is very perceivable but a Star Trek "graviton" is not. Microscopes, telescopes and large sensor arrays are certainly worth their cost to boost human knowledge. However, the ideas and theory of multiple dimensions is something I don't expect to be proved or disproved . . . ever. Spatial dimensions and *time* are readily experienced but where is there a real "twilight zone," or 'Fifth Dimension?" I don't ask for much. No 10 dimensions. Just a fifth.

An old question of mine, and others, is why haven't we detected evidence of life on the posited, tens of billions of humanly occupiable planets in the universe? My own theory on that is that we need to think of another way to communicate across vast distances. And when we finally figure it out . . .  Hello. Is anybody really out there?Peter

[Max]

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

An old question of mine, and others, is why haven't we detected evidence of life on the posited, tens of billions of humanly occupiable planets in the universe? My own theory on that is that we need to think of another way to communicate across vast distances. And when we finally figure it out . . .  Hello. Is anybody really out there?Peter

You may think what you want, but there is no way to communicate with a speed faster than the speed of light. And as our own galaxy is already larger than 100000 light years...