Philosophy Now Forum

All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject. Which makes apparent reality a strange quality, a dream-like quality, for it is a biological readout of what a conscious subject is capable of sensing. Morality is a content meaning, and all meaning is subjective until through a conscious subject it is bestowed upon the objective outer world. If one says that morality is objective, that is inferring that the physical world is conscious and capable of holding meaning in and of itself. It really comes down to appreciating the meaning of Schopenhaures statement, "Subject and object stand or fall together", take one away and the other ceases to be, COGNITIVELY! Cognitively is the only way the world is known to us.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:30 pm There are other possibilities; you may calmly shelve the problem until you have more information: or you may decide to await a sympathetic impulse.

Agreed, if one finds oneself unable to decide then don't.

Until such time that they have all the necessary information. Even if that information is becoming aware of one's own sympathy to one of the choices available.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Is a neutrino an object? If so why cannot most people not perceive it?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Is a neutrino an object? If so why cannot most people not perceive it?

Not sure if this is a serious point. We know neutrinos, and things such as quantum mechanical events, exist. And they don't exist merely because we know they exist. They aren't the cognitive property, whatever that is, of a conscious subject. That is incredible nonsense.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Is a neutrino an object? If so why cannot most people not perceive it?

For the same reason most people cannot perceive an amoeba. But anyone can perceive one with a microscope.

And anyone can perceive a neutrino if they have the right equipment, like that used to measure a neutrino's speed:

The first measurements of neutrino speed were made in the early 1980s using pulsed pion beams (produced by pulsed proton beams hitting a target). The pions decayed producing neutrinos, and the neutrino interactions observed within a time window in a detector at a distance were consistent with the speed of light. This measurement was repeated in 2007 using the MINOS detectors, which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be, at the 99% confidence level, in the range between 0.999976 c and 1.000126 c. The central value of 1.000051 c is higher than the speed of light but, with uncertainty taken into account, is also consistent with a velocity of exactly c or slightly less.

Many things in science cannot be directly perceived, but are only known because their existence produces real physical effects that can be perceived. If they didn't, they could never be known.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Peter,

Just the fact that all knowledge is on a cognitive level should make you a little more careful where you use the word absurd. In the absence of a conscious subject, there is nothing, cognitively. Take away the object or the world as an object and there is no mind, no conscious subject. Perhaps you can give it a bit more thought.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 4:23 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 1:14 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 10:34 am So there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, boiling down to: what I do and don't want done to me.

So morality is subjective. Now, where have come across that argument before?

WHY do you write your OWN 'arguments', and then REFUTE 'them', "yourself"?

You may be confused. I'm clarifying an argument from an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged self-confessed troll.

Are you BRAVE enough to name that one?

If that one is meant to be 'me', then you have REALLY MISTAKEN or MISINTERPRETED what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

And, if you EVER do want to KNOW, EXACTLY, what I have been MEANING, then, hopefully by now, you KNOW what to do.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 4:23 pm Silly, I know. Feeding them only encourages them. Come to think of it, I have my doubts about the 'human being' going by the name of Age.

LOL So 'you' mention 'me', but do not seem TOUGH enough to spell out ANY thing directly.

This might be because there is an INNER KNOWING that I have NEVER presented ANY such argument as the one that YOU WROTE above here.

Also, you ONLY ALLUDE to some 'thing', which you have "doubts" about. How about you, literally, SPELL OUT what 'it' IS that you are ALLUDING to here?

Or, are you just too SCARED to?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers.

What do you mean by 'real things'?

'Thoughts' are 'real things', to some people, but they are NOT 'objects', to some people.

'Unicorns' are 'objects', to some people, but they are NOT 'real things', to some people.

So, what are 'objects', to you? And,

What are 'real things', to you?

Will you provide examples and definitions?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, when 'you' use the 'we' word who and/or what are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY?

This is asked because when 'you' say 'we', sometimes, 'you' using it as though the 'consensus' makes 'it' true, right, or correct.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 4:23 pm They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers.

Which has relatively nothing to do with 'objective' or 'objectivity'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 4:23 pm So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Is a neutrino an object? If so why cannot most people not perceive it?

If MOST people can NOT perceive some 'thing' that SOME people can, supposedly, perceive, then either the 'MOST people' do NOT 'listen' to the 'SOME people' or the 'SOME people' have just NOT learned how to explain or define the 'neutrino' FULLY nor Correctly, just YET.

By the way, does ANY here class the 'neutrino' as NOT 'an object'?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:08 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am
What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Is a neutrino an object? If so why cannot most people not perceive it?

Not sure if this is a serious point. We know neutrinos, and things such as quantum mechanical events, exist.

AGAIN 'you' use the 'we' word. So, who KNOWS 'neutrinos' exist? HOW do those 'ones' KNOW 'neutrinos' exist?

Do 'you' KNOW 'neutrinos' exist because 'someone' TOLD 'you' they do, or because 'you' have 'perceived' them? If the latter, then PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Do 'you' ALSO KNOW 'God' exists?

If no, then WHY NOT? Or, if 'you' KNOW 'God' does NOT exist, then HOW do 'you' KNOW?

Furthermore, HOW do 'you' KNOW 'quantum mechanical events' exist? What are 'they', to you, EXACTLY? And, HOW, EXACTLY, do they exist?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 4:23 pm And they don't exist merely because we know they exist.

Then HOW do you KNOW 'they' exist?

If 'you' have PERCEIVED 'them', then EXPLAIN HOW 'you' have PERCEIVED 'them'.

Your INABILITY to EXPLAIN will leave some wondering just HOW 'you', supposedly, KNOW, for sure, 'they' exist.

So far, it appears 'you' ONLY KNOW 'they' exist BECAUSE, laughably, "you know they exist" and ONLY BECAUSE 'you' have been TOLD 'they' exist.

But, maybe, you CAN and WILL EXPLAIN HOW 'you' KNOW 'neutrinos' and 'quantum mechanical events' exist. We will just have to WAIT to SEE.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 4:23 pm They aren't the cognitive property, whatever that is, of a conscious subject. That is incredible nonsense.

So, you appear to NOT 'know' what a 'cognitive property' is, but seem to KNOW, FOR SURE, that 'neutrinos' or 'quantum mechanical events' are NOT the 'cognitive property' of some 'thing'. Which appears to be VERY CONTRADICTORY.

AGAIN, HOW EXACTLY do 'you' KNOW 'neutrinos' EXIST, FOR SURE?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 11:48 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am
What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

Is a neutrino an object? If so why cannot most people not perceive it?

For the same reason most people cannot perceive and amoeba. But anyone can perceive one with a microscope.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of this?

Or, is this just what you ASSUMED?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 pm And anyone can percieve a neutrino if they have the fight equipment, like that used to measure a neutrino's speed:

But one does NOT need equipment that measures the ' speed of some 'thing' ' to 'perceive' some 'thing'.

To PERCEIVE some 'thing' one NEEDS the equipment, which ALLOWS one to PERCEIVE that 'thing'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 pm

The first measurements of neutrino speed were made in the early 1980s using pulsed pion beams (produced by pulsed proton beams hitting a target). The pions decayed producing neutrinos, and the neutrino interactions observed within a time window in a detector at a distance were consistent with the speed of light.

But what was the 'equipment' used to observe, thus perceive, the 'neutrino' itself?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 pm This measurement was repeated in 2007 using the MINOS detectors, which found the speed of 3 GeV neutrinos to be, at the 99% confidence level, in the range between 0.999976 c and 1.000126 c. The central value of 1.000051 c is higher than the speed of light but, with uncertainty taken into account, is also consistent with a velocity of exactly c or slightly less.

Sounds like some 'trying to' to "justify" some 'thing', which they EXPECTED or ASSUMED could NOT occur.

But anyway, would ANY one here like to EXPLAIN what 'neutrinos', themselves, ARE EXACTLY? As well as EXPLAIN how they KNOW 'neutrinos' EXIST? Other than through from just being TOLD that 'they' exist.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 pm Many things in science cannot be directly perceived,

So, can 'neutrinos' be perceive or observed through a microscope or not?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 3:49 pm but are only known because their existence produces real physical effects that can be perceived. If they didn't, they could never be known.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, it now appears that 'you', human beings, have NOT YET even perceived, observed nor sensed, these so-called 'neutrinos' and "their existence" is just based solely on the "explanation", "It is because of some non-experienced, or non-perceived, 'things' that the 'real physical effects' can be perceived".

Which transfers to, ONCE AGAIN, "science" sounding more like "religion" every day.

"Religion": God created everything.
"Science": Big Bang created everything.

BUT, what created God AND a Big Bang CANNOT be explained by ANY one who FOLLOWS and BELIEVES (in) "religion" NOR "science".

What explains the 'real physical effects', which 'we', human beings, observe and experience?

"Religion": God.
"Science": 'things' we can NOT observe NOR experience. But we take 'measurements', which the 'central value' of is faster than the 'speed of light', so we will just add and use the "uncertainty" EXCUSE and take 'that' "into account", to adjust our 'measurements' to MAKE 'them' "work in with" what we have previously SAID and CLAIMED is true, right, and correct.

ALL of these STORIES, ASSUMPTIONS, and GUESSES are completely and utterly UNNECESSARY, especially considering the ACTUAL Fact that what thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth is just SO MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER to UNDERSTAND and EXPLAIN.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

HI Peter,

You are inferring that there is another way of knowing other than on the biological level, please enlighten me as to what that might be.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 5:34 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 7:55 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 07, 2022 1:33 am All objects are objective, but the knowledge and meaning of objects, in other words, the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject.

What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers. They did, would and will exist when there are no conscious observers. So the claim that 'the object itself is a cognitive property of a conscious subject' is absurd.

HI Peter,

You are inferring that there is another way of knowing other than on the biological level, please enlighten me as to what that might be.

Hi, popeye.

Not at all. I'd guess we agree on quite a lot.

But your point about what we call objects seems to be ontological, rather than epistemological. And I think we have to make a sharp distinction between features of reality that are or were the case (facts, including the existence of objects), and what we believe and know about them. We do perceive reality - and believe and know things about it - as human beings, with our specific neural equipment. But that reality isn't our 'cognitive property'. That seems to me a confusing projection, muddling up the two quite different things.

The third (also sharply distinguished) element of my methodological taxonomy (sorry!) is what we say about things such as objects. We can describe things in many different ways, but a description doesn't create the thing being described, any more than our knowing it does.

That given, I completely agree with you that, outside language, what we call reality has no meaning, no truth-value. It just exists.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:44 am And I think we have to make a sharp distinction between features of reality that are or were the case (facts, including the existence of objects), and what we believe and know about them.

Why?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:44 am That given, I completely agree with you that, outside language, what we call reality has no meaning, no truth-value. It just exists.

Outside of language what do you mean by "exists" ?