What is an object

[James Markham]

Spheres, the way I understand reality, is that all things and events are subject to interpretation, as in your example of touch, you say we feel certain inherent forms of substance, but in reality we approach a threshold at which certain forces come into play, there is no physical contact between substance at all.

That said, I think your first post was an accurate description of the points I was attempting to show, just that our opinions differ.

[jackles]

yes i think this somes up mans delema.the moment we think of an object in terms of knowlege that object becomes a seperation or duality of its self.is it nothing in terms of consciousness or something in which case consciousness its self is begiled by the object.

[Ginkgo]

I don't think it a fools errand. I think he's trying to make sense of things from the standpoint of QM. Which is why Ginkgo responded, one of his interests. Of course I believe that the OP's thinking is grabbing for straws.

Dictionary definition follows:
-------------------------------

"ob·ject [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt]
noun
1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation.
3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
6. Optics. the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image.
7. Grammar . (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object.
8. Computers. any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text.
9. Metaphysics . something toward which a cognitive act is directed.

verb (used without object)
10. to offer a reason or argument in opposition.
11. to express or feel disapproval, dislike, or distaste; be averse.
12. to refuse or attempt to refuse to permit some action, speech, etc.
verb (used with object)
13. to state, claim, or cite in opposition; put forward in objection: Some persons objected that the proposed import duty would harm world trade.
14. Archaic. to bring forward or adduce in opposition."

--Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--

----------------
End Definition

Of course it's because we're speaking in different terms.
What's more important to me are those definitions in red above,
while I believe that his are in blue,
correct me if I'm wrong.

The dictionary definition is not a bad way of looking at it.

Another way of saying it would be the difference between idealism and naive realism. The dictiony appears to try and cover both types of understandings.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo, yes that's basically what I'm saying. All difentiation of objective reality is some degree dependent on perception, and at a fundamental level, what exists is not physical.

What interests me is the necessity of this fact, and the impossibility of interaction if things were actual distintict entities. What I believe the implications are, is that our reality is inherently personal, and anything that we interact with, is fundamentally an extension of ourselves, so to me that means we are all aspects of a single existence.

That is pretty much the idealist position made famous by George Berkeley. I am not sure if you are familiar with Berkeley, but if you google him you would find something of interest.

At the macro level the laws of cause and effect between objects are something we are very familiar with on a day to day basis. At the micro or Planck scale the laws of cause and effect no longer apply. Even though this micro world behaves differently to what we expect, this world is still regarded (roughly speaking) as being of a physical nature.

[James Markham]

Ginkgo, I have a book by Berkeley which is next on my reading list, so I'll be able to comment on that shortly.

With regards to the physicality of subatomic particles, I would say their position as objects is tentative, surely using reason alone it can be deduced that at some point physical properties dissolve. When we think about our perception of the physical, we rely on forces perceived by our senses, and at the point at which our senses cannot penetrate further, we rely on reason to inform us. I think this is the point at which physicality necessarily gives way to metaphysicality.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo, I have a book by Berkeley which is next on my reading list, so I'll be able to comment on that shortly.

With regards to the physicality of subatomic particles, I would say their position as objects is tentative, surely using reason alone it can be deduced that at some point physical properties dissolve.

I think physicists would agree with you to a point and say reason plays an important part in the micro world. But the type of reasoning they have in mind is of the mathematical type.

When we think about our perception of the physical, we rely on forces perceived by our senses, and at the point at which our senses cannot penetrate further, we rely on reason to inform us. I think this is the point at which physicality necessarily gives way to metaphysicality.

Again, I think science would agree with you to a point. It is where our senses cannot penetrate any further is the point science stops and metaphysics begins for some. By this I roughly mean classical science. Quantum physicists would disagree and claim that the micro world is still explainable in what we might called physical terms, although they would talk in terms of waves, particles and fields.

[EagerForTruth]

Well i for one am glad for the post - as one who hasn't studied any academic philosophy it will definately help me understand when it's used rigidly in that sense, although James himself seems to have a respectable wiggle room when expressing himself. And he pretty much hit on the head what i'd THINK of as an object to, although in a given instance it could have any of the available definitions. Of course this definition problem seems to occur rampantly in everything i've seen on here so far, though i'm glad i just joined

Also to my mind, the parts where it starts getting hyper technical "so if, so if, then" type attempts to attach a definition it misses the point that depending who is using it, when, and in what context. Some of the contradictions and arguments i've seen stem from the inability to see the use of the word object - not to mention the idea of object which is why we use the word -in the way that it was used. Or rather it's one conscious perceptions inability to understand another (i.e. person A says object and person B doesn't comprehend the idea that was trying to be communicated)

As for the physical property part, well - as individual beings who can only be conscious of what we perceive, again an object becomes what we define it as, and even all the physics in the world can't help - after all, while i love science, so far it has proven unable to - and i highly suspect will always prove unable to - explain all of our perceptions. I wonder how many think it will, i rather guess many do.

Hex - really - everytime i see a post of yours it's a one line denial and rejection of anything anyone might have bothered to write, indeed especially when it was written to stimulate thought and expand perspective - but u just keep at it

Anyway, I'm glad for the "object" if i can use it linguistically of the post.

[James Markham]

I'm mostly interested in the nature of the things we classify as objective, and the way in which our function of distinction operates. It puzzles me how things, such as the sun, and the moon, can appear so manifestly different in their nature, but in reality be formed by a uniform essence which is fundamentally of an intangible nature. In physics there are many particles, but they are distinct by virtue of qualities such as mass (which is a product of velocity and gravitational value), spin (which is angular momentum), and charge (which is a disposition to act towards a particle of opposite charge). There is nothing fundamentally different or unique to be found in any of the sub atomic particles, except the events they have the tendency to create. And further to this, at the most smallest stages, particles are replaced for the most part with a wave potential, which is like saying the particles are only potentially existent.

It can all get rather confusing, but thankfully my thoughts are mostly of an idealistic nature, and although that means I believe the whole of reality is contained within a mental structure, I still retain the belief that our personal experience of reality can be classified into three categories.

Firstly there is the perceiver, and secondly there is that which is perceived, and thirdly it seems to me that regardless of whether what we perceive has any real physical manifestation, it most certainly does possess the ability to be perceived differentially in the form of events, and it's the content of those events that are what we understand as objects

So even if experiential reality is purely subjective in the sense that physical manifestations are dependent on perception, and arise within a purely mental realm, there is still the question of what dictates the process by which perceived events unfold and dictate the course of our experience. If we look at a realm which we know is purely subjective, such as the imagination or dreams, we can see that although events are freely able to lack logical sequence and causation, they remain governed by the forms and events we experience when awake. For example, a blind man doesn't dream or imagine form, and a deaf person can't imagine sounds. So it's clear there exists a process by which these ideas are able to become appreciated and considered as events, and it's to these processes and events that I'm applying the term objective.

So if we take the example of the sun, it produces the experiences of heat and light, which are produced through the interfacing of subject and object, and are absent if either are removed. So heat resides in neither subject or object, but is a consequence of the interaction between the two. The same is true of light, if we take a child with perfect eyesight and rear them in darkness, as a man they wouldn't dream visually, and without the interpretation afforded by the senses, the sun would display no image.

So I suppose I'm trying to say that to me, the idea of objects is in someway between these two aspects of reality, there is us as an agent of evaluation, there is that which is able to become subjected to an interpretation, and there is the resulting reality of objects, not the thing which evaluates, and not the thing which is evaluated, but the actual evaluation.

[Ginkgo]

I'm mostly interested in the nature of the things we classify as objective, and the way in which our function of distinction operates. It puzzles me how things, such as the sun, and the moon, can appear so manifestly different in their nature, but in reality be formed by a uniform essence which is fundamentally of an intangible nature. In physics there are many particles, but they are distinct by virtue of qualities such as mass (which is a product of velocity and gravitational value), spin (which is angular momentum), and charge (which is a disposition to act towards a particle of opposite charge). There is nothing fundamentally different or unique to be found in any of the sub atomic particles, except the events they have the tendency to create. And further to this, at the most smallest stages, particles are replaced for the most part with a wave potential, which is like saying the particles are only potentially existent.

It can all get rather confusing, but thankfully my thoughts are mostly of an idealistic nature, and although that means I believe the whole of reality is contained within a mental structure, I still retain the belief that our personal experience of reality can be classified into three categories.

Firstly there is the perceiver, and secondly there is that which is perceived, and thirdly it seems to me that regardless of whether what we perceive has any real physical manifestation, it most certainly does possess the ability to be perceived differentially in the form of events, and it's the content of those events that are what we understand as objects

So even if experiential reality is purely subjective in the sense that physical manifestations are dependent on perception, and arise within a purely mental realm, there is still the question of what dictates the process by which perceived events unfold and dictate the course of our experience. If we look at a realm which we know is purely subjective, such as the imagination or dreams, we can see that although events are freely able to lack logical sequence and causation, they remain governed by the forms and events we experience when awake. For example, a blind man doesn't dream or imagine form, and a deaf person can't imagine sounds. So it's clear there exists a process by which these ideas are able to become appreciated and considered as events, and it's to these processes and events that I'm applying the term objective.

So if we take the example of the sun, it produces the experiences of heat and light, which are produced through the interfacing of subject and object, and are absent if either are removed. So heat resides in neither subject or object, but is a consequence of the interaction between the two. The same is true of light, if we take a child with perfect eyesight and rear them in darkness, as a man they wouldn't dream visually, and without the interpretation afforded by the senses, the sun would display no image.

So I suppose I'm trying to say that to me, the idea of objects is in someway between these two aspects of reality, there is us as an agent of evaluation, there is that which is able to become subjected to an interpretation, and there is the resulting reality of objects, not the thing which evaluates, and not the thing which is evaluated, but the actual evaluation.

If all physical things are ultimately made of the same stuff, then way are physical things so different? This would be a fair question since the idea that arranging particles in different ways may not be a satisfactory answer.

I am not sure if this is what you are asking, but there is a theory that all elementary particles are not that elementary. They are made up of vibrating strings. So ultimately the difference between us, a chair and a rock is the way in which the strings vibrate. So basically, String Theory postulates that the differences that are apparent to us can be explained in terms of how strings vibrate.

It is probably worth mentioning that all I am doing in this forum is giving my interpretation, and this is all anyone can do. I am certainly not saying I am always correct. If anyone wants to correct me on any point then I would be most grateful. Provided of course said persons are giving me the correct answer.

[EagerForTruth]

I think maybe the point is there is no "correct" answer? Again, it's always interesting to see how much of the leading modern edge of physics inserts itself into a lot of these conversations to me. But that's why whether we include the quantum physics or the string theory or not, once again, we always come up against the lack of certainty and the fact that no matter how much we discover there is still something more we have to contemplate. We must remember as well that when it comes to the frontiers of physics, these are all just theories trying to explain the things we perceive - not that they don't have value - but in some way they are just visualizations that describe the way we see things at work. Note that even the basic calculation of the strength of gravity, while accurate, is really just a mathematical explanation of why everything is attracted to each other. They haven't found a particular energy transfer, wave, particle or any other reason why it should, which string theory tries to correct. Of course this is all just the evolution of how we understand what we perceive around us, and I would continue to expect it to evolve.

As for James's idea, objective really is quite the tricky term. For each individual, as my posts may show, I'm not so sure we can claim as individuals to see anything objectively. I think we experience objects subjectively. But regardless of each subjective perception, there is always the relationship that leads to evaluation, always some connection that leads subject to perceive object in some way.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres, the way I understand reality, is that all things and events are subject to interpretation, as in your example of touch, you say we feel certain inherent forms of substance, but in reality we approach a threshold at which certain forces come into play, there is no physical contact between substance at all.
Yes that's correct, it just slipped an aging mind, but my point was that visual reference, as to physical properties, is verified by touch, and that the feel of physical properties, is verified by sight, which lends to their actual physicality. And I know you'll probably say that it's because they share one brain, that unifies the two senses, however these physical properties can be seen and touched in the same way, with the same corroboration, between the two senses, by another entity, realizing the exact same conclusions as to it's physical properties. Or at least those physical properties that are capable of being resolved, with the particular resolution capabilities, of the senses in question.


That said, I think your first post was an accurate description of the points I was attempting to show, just that our opinions differ.

[HexHammer]

So, why can't a cozy chatter look it up for himself? Because he's a cozy chatter and always will be!

Tragicly people doesn't encourage him to look it up for himself, it's not difficult, it's not complex, so if he can't look up such simple things, he will for an eternity sit here and sit asking silly selfexplanatory questions, and never being able to reach higher lvls of understanding, because you help him sitting here waiting for too often half baked answers.

[Blaggard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r6NY4Kl8Ms

Sorry but this exactly explains why it is or it is not numberwang, and by implication solves the problem of whether or whether something like for example my chair exists pertinently proved by Betrrand Russel who apparently smashed the jug so that no one could copy his work.

All I want to know is how all these so called people, learned my language, and to say 7?

"In that corner was Alan Turing's desk where just after the war he spent several months tragically trying to degay himself with a lazer."

LMAO

Incidentally everyone knows lazers don't degay people, and the very idea is clearly not sensible. Just in case anyone thought I was remotely being flippant or in fact serious.

Seriously though we have to have an objective discussion about what constitutes an object and then look for commonality to build up a lexicon of language which any one might understand. We don't even have that atm, although there are some interesting psychological theories.

I'd say we have a sort of rough dictionary, but language differences prove a hindrance. To use an analogy.

So, why can't a cozy chatter look it up for himself? Because he's a cozy chatter and always will be!

Tragicly people doesn't encourage him to look it up for himself, it's not difficult, it's not complex, so if he can't look up such simple things, he will for an eternity sit here and sit asking silly selfexplanatory questions, and never being able to reach higher lvls of understanding, because you help him sitting here waiting for too often half baked answers.

Hex what is the answer then since it is so simple, seems to me in the time it took to post the usual demeaning post of yours you could of much more easily just explained the answer. But no I presume that would mean you are a parrot or some shit.

I don't see the purpose of the question posed, it should be selfexplanatory and it's a fool's errand in wasting time on it.

Oh my God...i think you have just defined Philosophy!

No he just defined Hexosophy angrilly rant at someone for being stupid and refuse to indulge in any discussion because you're all just parrots and cozy chatters. Then retire.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So, why can't a cozy chatter look it up for himself? Because he's a cozy chatter and always will be!

Tragicly people doesn't encourage him to look it up for himself, it's not difficult, it's not complex, so if he can't look up such simple things, he will for an eternity sit here and sit asking silly selfexplanatory questions, and never being able to reach higher lvls of understanding, because you help him sitting here waiting for too often half baked answers.

And you could walk next door and tell Bruno the Brute the exact same thing, or maybe machine-gun Kelly, down the road. I'm sure they would listen to your 'reason(???)' and respond accordingly!!! In other words, you could do that all yourself, instead of letting a computer do it for you...

...Oh I see!!!

Never mind!


"Bang, bang Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon his head, (doot do do doot)
Clang, clang Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that he was dead.

Sil-ver Ham-mer man" (de dow do de dow do de doot doot), yeah

[FallenDevil]

...
I think the answer to these questions, is that the defining of object is contingent upon a conscious evaluation of certain distinct qualities or attributes, and not related to any quantity of physical substance. So the identification or defining of objects is an action or mental event, and I believe this can now be shown by the the fact that at the microscopic level all things are constructions of the same fundamental particles, and so the distinctions we make at the macroscopic level, are necessarily only of function, not of any fundamental form. It therefore follows that without the conscious acknowledgement of functions, all objective differentiation is absent, and the concept of object becomes irrelevant.
...

Your treatment of objects suffers a blatant oversight in not considering the spatial arrangements of those particles. You rush too quickly from fundamental particles to the mental event. It's interesting that our science ideas often do the same thing. We rush to reduce things and in doing so we miss the world of diverse spatially grouped objects.

If you have in hand a shaker of salt how can you deny that the frequency of sodium and chlorine atom balls inside the shaker is statistically significant? The definition of objects is to be found in a mathematical treatment of these spatial statistics. Not in your head, at least not until we consider your head as an object in a larger system.