tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8380817979579390385..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Schrödinger, Democritus, and the paradox of materialismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4632306734680835252023-02-09T20:41:09.998-08:002023-02-09T20:41:09.998-08:00“either to reject the existence of matter (as Berk...“either to reject the existence of matter (as Berkeley did)”<br />No.<br />He rejected the existence of matter *as it was understood* by Locke, Malebranche, etc. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44720143972024092372009-09-18T16:53:10.612-07:002009-09-18T16:53:10.612-07:00Ilion,
If you have said ”… and I don't believ...Ilion,<br /><br />If you have said ”… <i>and I don't believe that there is any sound if there is no observer to witness … the falling of the tree.”</i> it would be as true as it is trivial and devoid of the least philosophical worth and consequence. Neither would it be worth a comment.<br />You could just as well have said that since you didn’t join the party you were not affected by the booze served there. <br />Both sentences presuppose that the tree DID fall and the booze WAS served. <br /><br />But you said “.. <i>...I don't believe that there is any sound if there is no observer to witness the pressure-waves caused by the falling of the tree</i><br /><br />Which indicates that you ascribe to “pressure waves” an objective and independent of our mind reality, in any case “more objective” reality than the sound. <br />Actually, both “pressure waves” and sound don’t have an inherent, but only relative existence - they are “awaken” when we “step into the picture”. In fact, the existence of “pressure wave” is less obvious than sound inasmuch as the former requires previously defining concepts of pressure and wave, which in turn requires defining a host of even more basic concepts. True, there is no sound without someone who has the sense of hearing, but neither are there “pressure waves” without intellect defining them with help of, created by intellect, empirical tools. The former is obvious to man or beast, but the latter only to man. Yes, we could, before the tree falls, leave behind a tape recorder which, if tree falls, would record the “pressure waves”. But the reading of the device would be as dependent on our senses, as hearing the sound. <br /><br />But now is time for me to go to bed<br />Good night.T. Hanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11976398784575212478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33850470282258038742009-09-18T15:07:02.037-07:002009-09-18T15:07:02.037-07:00Ilion says:
But, of course.
Do you believe that w...Ilion says:<br /><br /><i>But, of course.<br />Do you believe that words -- the sounds which come out of our mouths or the scratchings by which we represent those sounds -- have intrinsic meaning?</i><br /><br />Well, for the first, the words are not “the sounds which come out of our mouths”. Rather a word is our interpretation, or meaning, of “the sounds that come from our mouths”. If I say in Danish “ost” and you, in English, “cheese” these are two different sounds, but both convey the same meaning. Also an assembly of letters, for example, “c,h,e,e,s,e” written on paper mean “cheese” even though they are soundless. A drawing of a piece of cheese will mean the same to an illiterate and deaf person, as the sound “cheese” to one with good hearing.<br />Also, you can have the same “sound coming out of mouths” of speakers of two different languages yet signifying something different. Would you say they are the same words?<br /><br />In short,without meaning you can make all sounds you want - they will never become words.<br /><br />Then you ask if I believe the words have intrinsic meaning? <br /><br />Yes,(who doesn’t?) So what? What is your point? <br /><br />Are you trying to say that “intrinsic meaning” of the sound of the falling tree is...well, a falling tree? And therefore, what? <br /><br />Besides, in principle, you can have noise, which sounds like a falling tree except that it is not. It could have been produced by some other source of noise closely resembling the falling tree. Also, in principle, a falling tree may not produce a sound of the falling tree at all. <br />Without getting into discussion how appropriate is to apply words “intrinsic meaning” to the sound of a falling tree I still need to ask: so what?<br /><br /><i>Ah, I get it ... you're misunderstanding either the word 'observer' or the word 'witness.' And you're apparently not grasping the point of the question I asked you in return.</i><br /><br />I don’t think that, at least in the current context, the words: “witness” and “observer” mean something different.<br />At least not for you since you are saying ” <i>.. if there is no <b>observer</b> to <b>witness</b> the pressure-waves…</i><br />Do you mean to say that “...if there is no <b>witness</b> to <b>observe…</b>” means something different from “...if there is no <b>observer</b> to <b>witness…</b>”?<br /><br />If so, please explain why.T. Hanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11976398784575212478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13637403957662373952009-09-18T09:42:21.723-07:002009-09-18T09:42:21.723-07:00Ilíon: "... and I don't believe that ther...<b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>... and I don't believe that there is any sound if there is no observer to witness the pressure-waves caused by the falling of the tree.</i>"<br /><br /><b>C Matt:</b> "<i>That depends upon your definition of sound - must something include the perception of it in order for the something to exist? Can something exist independent of its perception?</i>"<br /><br />Of course a thing which is not a perception can exist independently of the perception of it. This is why T.Hanski's questions made no (or little) sense to me.<br /><br />But a sound <i>is</i> a perception (of something which is not a sound). The "sound of a falling tree" is the <i>perception</i> ... and comprehension ... of vibrations moving through the air (and the ground), which were caused by the falling of the tree. These are vibrations moving through the air (and the ground) are not <i>sound</i>, they are vibrations, they are movements of molecules in a wave pattern; or, as Mike Flynn put it, they are "compression waves."<br /><br />Does a tape recorder (an analoge device) *really* record sound? Does a CD (a digital device) *really* hold sound recorded on it?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49394783545361387362009-09-18T06:52:43.195-07:002009-09-18T06:52:43.195-07:00and I don't believe that there is any sound if...<i>and I don't believe that there is any sound if there is no observer to witness the pressure-waves caused by the falling of the tree</i><br /><br />That depends upon your definition of sound - must something include the perception of it in order for the something to exist? Can something exist independent of its perception?c mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25017154937789555242009-09-14T16:06:31.315-07:002009-09-14T16:06:31.315-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.T. Hanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11976398784575212478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-103148084185082282009-09-14T12:28:28.629-07:002009-09-14T12:28:28.629-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.T. Hanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11976398784575212478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32271276425684624162009-09-14T12:16:07.726-07:002009-09-14T12:16:07.726-07:00And you're apparently not grasping the point o...And you're apparently not grasping the point of the question I asked you in return.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1303744071561264032009-09-14T12:13:43.790-07:002009-09-14T12:13:43.790-07:00Ah, I get it ... you're misunderstanding eithe...Ah, I get it ... you're misunderstanding either the word 'observer' or the word 'witness.'Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77443928296416835442009-09-14T11:35:42.840-07:002009-09-14T11:35:42.840-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.T. Hanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11976398784575212478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63477130565264803562009-09-14T06:22:28.338-07:002009-09-14T06:22:28.338-07:00But, of course.
Do you believe that words -- the ...But, of course.<br /><br />Do you believe that words -- the sounds which come out of our mouths or the scratchings by which we represent those sounds -- have intrinsic meaning?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89847929941969461182009-09-14T04:45:16.476-07:002009-09-14T04:45:16.476-07:00.. and I don't believe that there is any sound...<i>.. and I don't believe that there is any sound if there is no observer to witness the pressure-waves caused by the falling of the tree.</i><br /><br />Do you believe that there are pressure-waves and the falling tree that caused them if there is no observer to witness them?T. Hanskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11976398784575212478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2616671968336715182009-09-14T02:02:49.463-07:002009-09-14T02:02:49.463-07:00Point taken, Illion.Point taken, Illion.Conor H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62071998321026294712009-09-14T01:06:34.045-07:002009-09-14T01:06:34.045-07:00More importantly, in my view, neither have the reg...More importantly, in my view, neither have the regular people, such as you and I, known that the infamous mind-body problem is merely an artifact of philosophical materialism.<br /><br />Philosophy is a very important thing ... too important to be left to the philosophers, for most of them are just <i>poseurs</i>.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55687316417140672922009-09-13T23:37:55.971-07:002009-09-13T23:37:55.971-07:00I just wanted to chime in and say that this is an ...I just wanted to chime in and say that this is an excellent post. Few modern philosophers recognize that the mind-body problem was created by materialism itself, by the invention of a new way of thinking.Vanitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03190524739107446297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20606588457572389412009-09-13T23:27:13.987-07:002009-09-13T23:27:13.987-07:00Conor H: "To be brief, scientism holds that t...<b>Conor H:</b> "<i>To be brief, scientism holds that the color red exists only in our minds.</i>"<br /><br />Just be sure you don't imply that *only* <i>scientistes</i> (my term for those who worship "science") hold to this view. For example, I oppose (and mock) scientism, but I don't believe that red is "out there" ... and I don't believe that there is any sound if there is no observer to witness the pressure-waves caused by the falling of the tree.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79349258144747908602009-09-13T17:40:53.532-07:002009-09-13T17:40:53.532-07:00Might the compression waves in the air be consider...Might the compression waves in the air be considered as the "material cause" of sound, or perhaps the "formal cause" of sound? Inquiring minds want to know.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47041823742869746232009-09-13T15:34:36.856-07:002009-09-13T15:34:36.856-07:00E.R. Bourne said: "What then is the proper ex...E.R. Bourne said: "What then is the proper explanation of sensation according to the A-T perspective? It does seem to be the case that color can be explained in terms of light waves, so obviously the answer might be something like 'Well. this certainly does not exhaust the explanation of color.'"<br /><br />I don't think it's true to say that color can be "explained" in terms of light waves, though it <br />can certainly be quantified as such. This in a nutshell is the problem with the whole scientistic <br />world-view: it doesn't explain so much as "explain away" non-quantifiable features of the material world. The color red, for instance, is in this view not objectively in the skin of an apple; rather, what we see as "red" is merely an interpretation of the differing wavelengths of light by the visual processes of our brains. The material world is thus nothing but colorless, tasteless, featureless particles in motion. Any QUALITY we sense in a material object is merely our sense-interpretation of certain QUANTITIES. <br /><br />On the A-T view, the color red IS objectively in the apple. It is a real property of the natural <br />world abstracted by our intellect via the senses, not merely an interpretation of colorless <br />particles interacting with one another. If every observer capable of seeing red were to wink out of existence, the color red would still exist on this view. According to scientism, however, <br />"red" would in this instance be rendered meaningless. The particles (quantity) would still exist; the color red (quality), however, would not. <br /><br />To be brief, scientism holds that the color red exists only in our minds. According to A-T, however, <br />red exists both as a real feature of the material world and as an idea grasped by our intellects.<br /><br />Hope this helps (and that I did not mangle the philosophy too badly).Conor H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19970620944369865822009-09-13T14:47:04.241-07:002009-09-13T14:47:04.241-07:00Just out of interest Ed, how does one shoot down t...Just out of interest Ed, how does one shoot down the likes of Berkeley et al? its just that new age witchy types and buhdists seem to hold to similer beliefs which makes them notriously difficult to evangelize, unlike materialists who will at least admit that they are sititng in a canteen sorounded by smells, bells and books by miscilanious oxford midgets.Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13138067724752124322009-09-13T06:53:40.031-07:002009-09-13T06:53:40.031-07:00Professor, what then is the proper explanation of ...Professor, what then is the proper explanation of sensation according to the A-T perspective? It does seem to be the case that color can be explained in terms of light waves, so obviously the answer might be something like "Well. this certainly does not exhaust the explanation of color."E.R. Bournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847266600675489605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35776001706805882262009-09-13T04:52:45.802-07:002009-09-13T04:52:45.802-07:00"You might as well say, in response to Gödel,..."<i>You might as well say, in response to Gödel, “Maybe the consistency of a formal system containing computable arithmetic really is internally provable after all, and our minds are just constitutionally incapable of seeing how.”)</i>"<br /><br />Is it really the <i>consistency</i> which is at issue?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com