commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."
I think it's more like this...
Man apprehends
thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the
thing.
Without Man there is no apprehending of
thing, no experiencing of
thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of
thing, but
thing remains or persists.
Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given
significance.
Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings
significations to
things) but Man does not create Reality (or the
things in it)
If someone were to say to me that anything we experience is real in every way and does not change when it is not being experienced or thought of, I would say that that sounds sorta like something that Henry has been telling us all along.
And I would guess that this is correct, but I cannot know that with certainty. If someone could just prove it to be correct, then I would know it to be unquestionably true.
But OBVIOUSLY NO one could prove that things do NOT change, when they are NOT being experienced nor thought of.
Why did this just suddenly now come into being questioned?
OBVIOUSLY things are ALWAYS
CHANGING, even if they are being experienced and thought of or even if they are NOT being experienced or NOT thought of.
What is also OBVIOUS is things CAN and DO
EXIST when they are being experienced or NOT being experienced, and/or when they are being thought of or NOT being thought of.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 amSo I suppose that the proof I’m waiting for would look something like this: If [insert argument here], then an object exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.
Adding and changing between the words 'exist' and 'change' does NOT help "others" to provide PROPER Answer/s.
If 'you' ACCEPT, TRUST, or BELIEVE your senses, then things EXIST even when 'you' are NOT directly experiencing nor thinking of them. This can be tested, and so can be verified or falsified.
But 'you' are NOT looking for this here. 'you' are looking for an 'argument' here, correct?
Now, IF absolutely NO ONE is experiencing or thinking of some thing, and IF that some thing exists or NOT is a whole other issue. 'you' have once again changed the outcome/Answer being sought here.
Now, when 'you' say
"no one" what do 'you' actually mean?
Until then,
Human beings came to exist, or evolved into Existence, from other things.
Before human beings started existing there MUST OF been other things previously. (Unless, of course, 'you' BELIEVE otherwise.)
ALL 'things', by definition, are objects, so 'other things' also are objects.
Before human beings started existing obviously there were NO human beings experiencing and thinking.
Objects, therefore, MUST OF existed when NO human beings were yet experiencing or thinking, of ANY thing.
So, IF this is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, THEN an object exists even when NO human being experiences or thinks of it.
However, in what EXACT way, shape, AND form those objects are EXISTING IN, EXACTLY, is a whole other matter. Because objects are ALWAYS continually changing at the subatomic structure.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 amI assert that there is no proof like that.
Do 'you' have ANY proof that there is NO proof like that, forever more, or even now?
Or, are you just making an ASSUMPTION based on what 'you' have so far previously experienced and/or thought about?
Do 'you' BELIEVE that there IS NO proof like that?
Or, are 'you' OPEN to the possibility that there COULD BE proof like that, one day, or are 'you' even OPEN enough to accept that the proof like that might even exist right now, when this is written? Or, are 'you' completely CLOSED to these POSSIBILITIES?