|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 4, 2007 13:28
If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties?
On the other hand, of course, we might want to say that if an object
is known by its properties, then this same object ALSO has these
properties as its internal properties, or is itself these properties.
So, for example, if an object deflects a weighing scale then the
object shows the properties of matter, and IS ITSELF matter. That is,
its internal properties are the same as its external properties. But
how could we ever find out? If we wanted to be empirical/scientific
about it, then we could never declare that an object is in itself its
own properties, and say, for example, that an object that has material
properties is itself matter, for we have no scientific access to
'inner' 'properties'.
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
|
| | 46 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 4, 2007 13:50
On Oct 5, 5:28 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
> per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
> ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties?
You're not very good at this are you?
You cant deny existence without first accepting there is something
existing to deny, i.e. without contradiction. Existence is axiomatic.
Your mission, should you ever choose to awaken from your Kantian
slumber, is to identify that which you claim to exist and to do so
without contradiction in your identification. why? Because there are
no contradictions in reality and that can not be denied without
accepting it as the standard to do so.
Science identifies and if they claim something exists, then the burden
of proof is upon them.
MG
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Oct 4, 2007 13:53
On Oct 4, 1:28 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
> per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
> ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties?
>
> On the other hand, of course, we might want to say that if an object
> is known by its properties, then this same object ALSO has these
> properties as its internal properties, or is itself these properties.
> So, for example, if an object deflects a weighing scale then the
> object shows the properties of matter, and IS ITSELF matter. That is,
> its internal properties are the same as its external properties. But
> how could we ever find out? If we wanted to be empirical/scientific
> about it, then we could never declare that an object is in itself its
> own properties, and say, for example, that an object that has material
> properties is itself matter, for we have no scientific access to
> 'inner' 'properties'.
>
> So to be practical or scientific about it, we cannot speak of objects
> as they are in themselves, as having 'inner' properties. We simply
> don't have access to objects beyond their 'properties'. All we can do ...
|
| Show full article (8.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:02
On Oct 4, 1:50 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Oct 5, 5:28 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>>> If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
>> per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
>> ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties?
>
> You're not very good at this are you?
>
> You cant deny existence without first accepting there is something
> existing to deny, i.e. without contradiction. Existence is axiomatic.
>
But that is only if he is aware of your version of necessity. You
claim that playing a particular language game, with customs and rules
that seem to makes sense, proves something about the world, a proof
that is the definition of necessity itself, didn't your daddy ever
teach you that that is a circular argument, one which begs the
question?
|
| Show full article (2.16Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:08
On Oct 5, 6:02 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> But that is only if he is aware of your version of necessity.
Mortal, explain HOW you can deny the existence of your ears without
cutting the fucking things off?
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:13
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:28:29 -0700, John Jones aol.com>
wrote:
>If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
>per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
>ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties...
|
| Show full article (2.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:33
On Oct 4, 2:08 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Oct 5, 6:02 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> But that is only if he is aware of your version of necessity.
>
> Mortal, explain HOW you can deny the existence of your ears without
> cutting the fucking things off?
>
> MG
You skipped the part about the justification for believing that I have
ears. Besides, there is a very small possibility, which no one so far
has been able to eliminate, in which I could be a brain in a vat with
wires running into me. I might have no senses at all but am fed the
data and I interact with the data and a mad scientists changes the
appearance of the world to accomadate my perceptial reality. If true
then I never would have had ears to begin with but only perceived that
I did.
Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
|
| Show full article (5.08Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:44
On Oct 5, 6:33 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> You skipped the part about the justification for believing that I have
> ears.
I avoid stepping in dog-shit for the same reason.
> Besides, there is a very small possibility, which no one so far
> has been able to eliminate, in which I could be a brain in a vat with
> wires running into me.
Now no-one can deny the reality of that, you do talk like a fucking
robot.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Adi BensonAdi Benson Date: Oct 4, 2007 14:55
> If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
> per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
> ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties?
do properties 'exist'?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Oct 4, 2007 15:43
On Oct 4, 9:53?pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Oct 4, 1:28 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> If objects are known by their properties, then presumably an object
>> per se has no properties. Yet we say it 'exists'. How could science
>> ever prove, or demonstrate such an object apart from its properties?
>
>> On the other hand, of course, we might want to say that if an object
>> is known by its properties, then this same object ALSO has these
>> properties as its internal properties, or is itself these properties.
>> So, for example, if an object deflects a weighing scale then the
>> object shows the properties of matter, and IS ITSELF matter. That is,
>> its internal properties are the same as its external properties. But
>> how could we ever find out? If we wanted to be empirical/scientific
>> about it, then we could never declare that an object is in itself its
>> own properties, and say, for example, that an object that has material ...
|
| Show full article (10.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
