Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You cannot point to a thing called change.

It's process and not an "object" in the traditional sense, but I don't think it's at all the case that we can't point to processes.

And "objects" in the traditional sense are processes after all. So whatever you point to, you pointing at change.

It doesn't make any sense to me to say that we can't point to obvious changes such as ocean waves or flying baseballs or wind-blown leaves or moving cars or anything like that.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You cannot point to a thing called change.

It's process and not an "object" in the traditional sense, but I don't think it's at all the case that we can't point to processes.

And "objects" in the traditional sense are processes after all. So whatever you point to, you pointing at change.

It doesn't make any sense to me to say that we can't point to obvious changes such as ocean waves or flying baseballs or wind-blown leaves or moving cars or anything like that.

You can point to true things but you cannot point to truth.
Truth is a concept we bring to bear upon things that interest us.
You can point to energetic things, examples or evidence of what we like to call energy, but you cannot point to energy itself. Energy is a category devised to explain and describe, just as 'change' is.
It was not until the 19thC that the concept of "heat" was appreciated in a thorough scientific way. These things can be wrong, and have no value until they form part of the paradigm, which varies with each epoch. Change might be a natural category but in scientific terms it is nothing but a dustbin category of various aspects of reality we like to chose to categorise together. "Change" per se has little objective meaning as it can refer to divers phenomena.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You cannot point to a thing called change.

It's process and not an "object" in the traditional sense, but I don't think it's at all the case that we can't point to processes.

And "objects" in the traditional sense are processes after all. So whatever you point to, you pointing at change.

It doesn't make any sense to me to say that we can't point to obvious changes such as ocean waves or flying baseballs or wind-blown leaves or moving cars or anything like that.

You can point to true things but you cannot point to truth.

Well, "true things" are propositions that have been adjudged to have the relevant relation (per the truth theory someone is using). "Truth" is the judgment made. In both cases, since propositions are meanings, we'd be pointing at particular brain processes. I think we can do that.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:It's process and not an "object" in the traditional sense, but I don't think it's at all the case that we can't point to processes.

And "objects" in the traditional sense are processes after all. So whatever you point to, you pointing at change.

It doesn't make any sense to me to say that we can't point to obvious changes such as ocean waves or flying baseballs or wind-blown leaves or moving cars or anything like that.

You can point to true things but you cannot point to truth.

Well, "true things" are propositions that have been adjudged to have the relevant relation (per the truth theory someone is using). "Truth" is the judgment made. In both cases, since propositions are meanings, we'd be pointing at particular brain processes. I think we can do that.

No, we can't. Colourful scans of cerebral images are corollaries of mind activities, which we cannot read, yet, maybe never.
And I think you are being ridiculous to suggest it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You can point to true things but you cannot point to truth.

Well, "true things" are propositions that have been adjudged to have the relevant relation (per the truth theory someone is using). "Truth" is the judgment made. In both cases, since propositions are meanings, we'd be pointing at particular brain processes. I think we can do that.

No, we can't. Colourful scans of cerebral images are corollaries of mind activities, which we cannot read, yet, maybe never.
And I think you are being ridiculous to suggest it.

Well, even without knowing exactly what brain state is something like making a truth judgment, if you just point at a brain in general you're pointing at making a truth judgment (when someone makes a truth judgment). It's kind of like pointing at a plant in general to point at photosynthesis.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Well, "true things" are propositions that have been adjudged to have the relevant relation (per the truth theory someone is using). "Truth" is the judgment made. In both cases, since propositions are meanings, we'd be pointing at particular brain processes. I think we can do that.

No, we can't. Colourful scans of cerebral images are corollaries of mind activities, which we cannot read, yet, maybe never.
And I think you are being ridiculous to suggest it.

Well, even without knowing exactly what brain state is something like making a truth judgment, if you just point at a brain in general you're pointing at making a truth judgment (when someone makes a truth judgment). It's kind of like pointing at a plant in general to point at photosynthesis.

But what you are pointing at is not true or truth. Truth is the relationship (correspendance, coherence) between the object and your perception of it. Truth happens in the mind.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
No, we can't. Colourful scans of cerebral images are corollaries of mind activities, which we cannot read, yet, maybe never.
And I think you are being ridiculous to suggest it.

Well, even without knowing exactly what brain state is something like making a truth judgment, if you just point at a brain in general you're pointing at making a truth judgment (when someone makes a truth judgment). It's kind of like pointing at a plant in general to point at photosynthesis.

But what you are pointing at is not true or truth. Truth is the relationship (correspendance, coherence) between the object and your perception of it. Truth happens in the mind.

Well, the relationship is the judgment about it. And yeah, it happens in the mind. The mind is a set of brain states.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Well, even without knowing exactly what brain state is something like making a truth judgment, if you just point at a brain in general you're pointing at making a truth judgment (when someone makes a truth judgment). It's kind of like pointing at a plant in general to point at photosynthesis.

But what you are pointing at is not true or truth. Truth is the relationship (correspendance, coherence) between the object and your perception of it. Truth happens in the mind.

Well, the relationship is the judgment about it. And yeah, it happens in the mind. The mind is a set of brain states.

It is widely believed and stated nowadays that "the mind is a set of brain states." And yet, at another time this was not stated. Dualism was very much in fashion. Are you stating it merely because it is in fashion, or are you speaking of particular experiments which can easily be performed?

OuterLimits wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
But what you are pointing at is not true or truth. Truth is the relationship (correspendance, coherence) between the object and your perception of it. Truth happens in the mind.

Well, the relationship is the judgment about it. And yeah, it happens in the mind. The mind is a set of brain states.

It is widely believed and stated nowadays that "the mind is a set of brain states." And yet, at another time this was not stated. Dualism was very much in fashion. Are you stating it merely because it is in fashion, or are you speaking of particular experiments which can easily be performed?

Why would I be stating something out of "fashion"? LOL

We have plenty of empirical evidence of physicalism. I mentioned this already. But you don't even need that. The very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

Terrapin Station wrote:Why would I be stating something out of "fashion"? LOL

We have plenty of empirical evidence of physicalism. I mentioned this already. But you don't even need that. The very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

You are not understanding me at all. It's ok. G'day.

Hobbes'Choice wrote:

You cannot point to a thing called change. It's just an adjective. You can't point to sadness; persistence; injustice; veracity; correctness.
On the assertion that the only thing that is deathless is {CHANGE ITSELF}; there is not change in "itself". Change is a human interested concept by which we describe particular aspects of our world.

I am wondering if absolute idealism(immaterialism) is what atheism basically is. And if those who, like me, believe that there actually is something 'out there' are the believers that we are not alone.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Well, even without knowing exactly what brain state is something like making a truth judgment, if you just point at a brain in general you're pointing at making a truth judgment (when someone makes a truth judgment). It's kind of like pointing at a plant in general to point at photosynthesis.

But what you are pointing at is not true or truth. Truth is the relationship (correspendance, coherence) between the object and your perception of it. Truth happens in the mind.

Well, the relationship is the judgment about it. And yeah, it happens in the mind. The mind is a set of brain states.

Good, so you agree that the "truth" is not out there!

"Change", in the same way, is an anthropocentric recognition of the fact that things are not the same as they were a moment before. I'm not denying that the universe is in a state of continual flux, I simply suggest that concepts about it are not "out there" too.

It actually makes things much clearer when you adopt this position, mostly concerning matters of opinion and morality. But I think is always useful to remind ourselves that our all too human categories are only conceptual representations of our world views.

Belinda wrote:Hobbes'Choice wrote:

You cannot point to a thing called change. It's just an adjective. You can't point to sadness; persistence; injustice; veracity; correctness.
On the assertion that the only thing that is deathless is {CHANGE ITSELF}; there is not change in "itself". Change is a human interested concept by which we describe particular aspects of our world.

I am wondering if absolute idealism(immaterialism) is what atheism basically is. And if those who, like me, believe that there actually is something 'out there' are the believers that we are not alone.

I think there is a tendency, which I find disabling and often quite arrogant that our view of the universe is a matter of simply reading what is there. When you realise that we daily construct our reality, things make more sense. All disagreements make sense; race wars, religious wars and arguments, and many of our categories taken to be natural are more cultural that we could ever admit - even scientific ones.

I think its worth starting with solipsism, moving towards idealism and only take realism with a pinch of skeptical salt. This is all healthy I think.

Concepts such as morality, good, evil are not universal absolute forces. Good is that which pleaseth man, evil is that which pleaseth him not.
There is more danger from a person that believes morality is absolute and objective than from one that knows it is culturally and personally negotiated.

OuterLimits wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Why would I be stating something out of "fashion"? LOL

We have plenty of empirical evidence of physicalism. I mentioned this already. But you don't even need that. The very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.

You are not understanding me at all. It's ok. G'day.

Maybe you're not expressing just what you want to say very clearly then.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:"Change", in the same way, is an anthropocentric recognition of the fact that things are not the same as they were a moment before. I'm not denying that the universe is in a state of continual flux, I simply suggest that concepts about it are not "out there" too.

Well, concepts are not extramental, of course, but we can't conflate concepts and what the concepts are about or what they're in response to. The "fact that things are not the same as they were a moment before" is change, and that is extramental. Any concept about or in response to it is going to be mental of course.