From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:04:38 +0000, Kevin Calder wrote:   
      
      
   >> its not necessary for the thing to   
   >>function..   
   >   
   > Its not even a "thing" without understanding.   
      
   its true that the language lets us down a bit.. but by "thing" i mean.. a   
   collection of matter in a certain configuration.. a brute fact.   
      
   IMO a "thing" exists independent of human perception of it.  this is a   
   major point of contention.. if u disagree .. well i can't prove i'm right   
   any more than u can.. but its what i believe to be true.  (also.. even   
   though its unprovable.. i'm about to try ; )   
      
   > This whole business of   
   > "things being" is inextricably bound up with understanding, it is a "by   
   > product of our over developed monkey brains".   
      
   yes and no.. a "planet" is bound up in understanding.  but a hunk of rock   
   in the void is not.  stripped of connotation the objects themselves, in   
   their basic and un-contemplated state, still exist.   
      
   however its a slightly different way of looking at things.. in this model   
   u have to accept the unimportance of the human species, recognize that our   
   subjective viewpoint is one of many potential views and possibly not the   
   most accurate..   
      
   when u strip a system of its subjective meaning and look at it raw u have   
   the opportunity to assign new meaning (or not) based upon its actual brute   
   attributes.. not the amalgam of shared human perception..   
      
   this is also a wicked CP thing to do ; )   
      
   its what people mean when they say "the street finds its own uses.. "   
      
      
   >> gravity was here long before the concept of "understanding"   
   >>(a by product of over developed monkey brains) existed and will   
   >>be here long after both it, and the human race, have gone.   
   >   
   >>and i'm saying that if a thing exists, it exists.  ur understanding or   
   >>appreciation of it doesn't matter.. it exists.  whether the thing is   
   >>peaceful co-existence with ur fellow man, gravity, or ballpoint pens, a   
   >>thing simply is or is not.   
   >   
   > If we aren't there to point at it and class it as "existing", or even   
   > somewhere else just noting the face that we classed it as "existing" (or   
   > understanding that we would class it as existing) then it don't exist.   
   > "existing" is not a concept that predates our understanding of it, and   
   > it is a concept that will die when we are no longer around to apply it.   
      
   this statement makes alot of assumptions u may not even have been aware of.   
      
   1. u assume that the viewpoint of a human being, or the entire human   
   species, has some sort of value.   
   2. u assume that we are the only entities capable of observing the   
   universe   
      
   right?  if existence is based in perception (and i'm not arguing that it   
   isn't.) then all thats necessary is a intelligent viewpoint.. if u can   
   subjectively infer that the universe is infinite then we've already agreed   
   there is other intelligent life out there ; )   
      
      
   >   
   > But without us being around (somewhere, even far from the forest, just   
   > thinking about it)  to notice that its a tree falling in the woods ,   
   > then what is it?  With out us defining these words you have to start   
   > wondering what a "tree" is, and what "falling" is.  These phenomena   
   > depend on our being around to interpret them.  Just by suggesting the   
   > thought experiment, you engaging in inevitable, subjective,   
   > interpretation and inviting me to do the same.   
      
   i don't think, they do.. a "tree" cannot "fall" without a human   
   watching..(the ideas of both a "tree" and "falling" being conventions of   
   human origin) but the system of matter and energy will continue in exactly   
   the same way whether or not we're watching.  with the same results.   
      
      
   >   
   > Ok, so I'm rambling.  But my main point is that if you want to approach   
   > the objective world, you have to do so via the only means possible,   
   > which are subjective, therefore declaring that "gravity objective   
   > existence is independent of your subjective position seems a bit   
   > nonsensical.   
      
   to me not realizing that they are independent of subjective viewpoints   
   seems nonsensical as well.. its a major difference of opinion and, as   
   i said at the start of this post, its near impossible to prove either   
   belief.. because in the end they are beliefs and not facts.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >   
   >>IMO what the biologists decide to classify a successful mutation as is   
   >>unimportant.. it will be the same thing regardless of its name.   
   >   
   > It should be clear by now that I don't believe that you can even begin   
   > to talk about something unless you are clear on what you named it.  I   
   > don't even know what "it" "is" until we start working on a definition.   
   > If you mean "name" in an extended sense, then IMHO it *will* be a very   
   > different thing if we define it, or "name" it differently.   
      
   the concept of naming binds u to a host of subjective (ie non-existent)   
   traits that the object (be it an animal, vegetable, desk, whatever) may not   
   actually possess!   
      
   of course naming changes a thing.. thats why i endeavor to separate the   
   object from the name in my head.. how else can u even attempt to think   
   objectively about anything?   
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)