Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

Because if they didn't have properties we wouldn't be able to perceive them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does this machine tell itself, independently of human perception, that a "test" is successful?

How do you remove the qualities 'blue' and 'color', from the machine's domain, if you build a machine to look for 'the color blue'?

I guarantee this is actually impossible (because someone showed this is the case a century or so ago).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, so we don't need senses to determine these properties? The properties "arrive" out of nowhere even when we aren't looking? Or listening, etc?

"we wouldn't be able to perceive them" if they didn't have properties? How do we perceive anything, do we use 'senses'?

If we don't, then objects' properties are independent from our senses. If we do, then...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Err.. you are proposing that not me.

 

SO THEN: "you don't know", if we need senses, or we don't need senses, to determine, etc. ??

You "can't say, it's something I'm proposing"? I proposed it as a counter argument to yours. You claim "qualities exist independently of observation". So then: "we don't need our senses to determine these independent properties"?

 

I said properties.
And no, we don't need to perceive them in order for them to exist.
When you are on holiday on Paris your couch back at home still has those same properties it had when you last looked at it. They don't need you to verify them.
And we do need senses to perceive said properties. I don't know where you got it from that we don't.. it's just absurd.

 

But we do need to perceive them in order for a perception to exist?

How do you know the couch is still the same as when you last saw it?

(Hint: unless you can communicate with this couch somehow, or ask an independent agent to do this - by looking at it for you, you can't know the couch is 'still the same couch' can you?)

Can you explain the difference between 'properties', and 'qualities'? You seem to be implying, with "I said properties", that "I didn't mean qualities"...

 

Wtf are you talking about ? :bugeye:

 

WTF are you talking about? Do you know?

Do I?

Enmos said: (if you aren't at home, but your couch is -maybe- then) "your couch back at home still has those same properties it had when you last looked at it".

How do you know your couch at home still has those properties you remember it had when you last looked at it, or sat on it? How do you know your house is still there? "we do need senses to perceive said properties. I don't know where you got it from that we don't".

See, here's me thinking that "properties are independent", as you insist, means "we don't need to perceive these properties, they're independent of perception". If that's true, we don't need any senses, do we?

 

See, here's me also claiming: "you cannot build a machine that will be able to select objects at random until it selects one that will mean I get killed". Or select anything else.

Because I can stipulate that the machine must be truly random. That is, it must select, in a non-deterministic way, every object in the universe, until one of them "matches" the required object that will operate the machine (assuming this operation means "I die").

This process would require more time than the predicted age of the universe, so I should live to a reasonable age, waiting for the "machine operation", that will never occur.

 

Only an idiot would come to that conclusion. Either you are trolling or the other thing.

 

And only a moron would jump to the conclusion that there are independent properties of objects, when we have to perceive those properties (qualities, right?) with our senses.

Perception depends on sensory information AND on the information an object 'gives' to those senses. Where's the independent part?

Answer: there is no independence, this is a fallacy.

So, are you trolling too?

 

LOL So you agree with me then

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perception depends on outside stimuli ("the information an object 'gives'" as you put it). These outside stimuli are the properties of the object, whatever they are. Now tell me how those properties are not independent of perception if perception is dependent (and it is) on those properties ?

 

I've noticed you do this quite a bit. You assume someone is disagreeing with you, point out they're wrong, then say exactly what that person said in the first place as if it supports your original contention of there being disagreement.

"outside' of what? Of the world of experience?

They aren't independent, they depend completely on perception, as I've been saying.

What I've been doing in arguing this point, is trying to show that perception depends completely on "the properties of objects". You now appear to agree with this.

Why were you sure that "properties of objects" are independent. Independent of what?

 

Seems to me you disagreed.

 

Disagreed with what??

You said: "Objects have properties independent of our perception."

Then you said: "perception is dependent (and it is) on those properties.."

So is perception dependent, on independent properties? Is that the model?

 

That objects have properties independent of our perception.

 

Our perception of objects is dependent on the properties of those objects.
The properties of those objects are not dependent of our perception of them.

 

"There is no perception of properties, unless objects have them (and our senses are 'functional')". Check

What do we perceive then? How do we know what we perceive is "independent"?

How can anyone know this is true?

 

Well.. if you agree with that I obviously misunderstood your posts..