Because the definition says nothing about testability. You’ve listed the condition of being unperceived by anyone, which as far as I can tell is mind-independent; it’s not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject, the whole point is that no conscious entity or subject is so much as experiencing it. Given what the Wiki definition goes on to say about the unknown…
…er, no; according to the Wiki entry you’re unaccountably fond of, being “falsifiable” is no more a requirement than being “testable”. It simply ain’t in there, same way it ain’t in the dictionary definitions; it’s stuff you’re insisting should be there, but, well, isn’t.
So what? I’m not trying to prove it. I’ve been telling since the start that the claim you made was objective in nature, not that it was true.
If we briefly assume that for the sake of argument – which I’m loath to do until you can find a cite – would any claim be objective, or would everything be mind-dependent?
I’m not looking to test or prove its existence.
Yes, but a moon that nobody happens to be perceiving isn’t the mind of anybody. It’s, like, the opposite of your example.
I don’t see where “meaningful” requires function/use/purpose on top of intelligibility; shall we break out the dictionaries again?
Sadly, that falls apart if the dictionary doesn’t define “properties” as “that which have been observed”. And since I haven’t seen observability required of “properties” any more than I’ve seen it required of “matter” or “objective” or whatever – or seen “testable” or “falsifiable” as criteria for existence – I have to wonder which word you’ll next pin your hopes to.
Yes, a single counterexample can disprove a proposition without reference to the chain of reasoning. Very good. Perhaps we are on the same page.
Since you do not seem capable of offering more that smug distractions from my line of argument, there is no point it me pointing out that I have already addressed in detail virtually all of your points above; we are going in circles.
Here is an example:
Looks like my strategy of explicitly repeating myself was futile. Go back and read it again, mr. comprehend-a-lot. You have been saying that the theorem that they exist objectively is true. Well, for a third time:* the theorem that they exist objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found*.
Yes, and that fact is not at all relevant to your argument that began this digression. If we are on the same page, the page is thus: whatever point you had been trying to make was vacuous and could have been restated in 5 words.
Regarding the definitions issue, you are being sophistically pedantic or faux-obtuse. I said:
to which you replied:
Evading the basic chain of logic:
If the condition of truth is explicitly not judgements made by a conscious entity or subject, then those conditions are implicitly an observation or test (whatever word you care to dumbly object to) upon the natural world that exists outside of a conscious entity of subject.
Nope. The moon is being perceived – in my imagination. But it by definition cannot be objectively perceived. Hence, it is subjective.
I extracted those words directly from my dictionary’s primary definition.
Do you understand that, in the natural world (the relevant context), properties are by definition those things that are measured about matter? Suppose you have a particle. What are its properties? Well, we have no idea until we measure them. <measure> Oh, now we know its properties. Its mass and charge seem to indicate it is an electron…
Here is a cite (don’t trust me?). There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics that are or have been prominently held which posit that objectively reality does not exist until measured. In fact, the measurement problem of quantum mechanics implies that this question is at the very heart of quantum mechanics. To answer your question: everything would neither be objective nor mind-dependent. But one coherent reality would not exist until observed. In a sense this is true of all interpretations of quantum mechanics.
At the time, you seemed to understand what I’d written; you disagreed with it, and I disagreed with that, but what’s key is that you got my position right: “You think that the following: Proposition: The moon is made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties Is an objective claim? Then you don’t understand what “objective” means. Any claim that is undecidable is by definition not objective.”
You have, at some point, incorrectly moved on to figuring I’ve said it was true; don’t do that. As per your initial question and response, I’ve been focusing on whether it’s an objective or subjective statement, not whether it’s a true or false one. (And when you then asked about a weather-controlling elephant, I replied that “it either objectively exists or objectively doesn’t, that’s for sure – and anyone who claims that such an elephant exists would be talking about objective facts rather than merely relaying a matter of subjective taste.” I then mentioned that the cheese-moon “either exists, or doesn’t, out there in a mind-independent reality”.)
All of that happened before the post you’re replying to, when I again reiterated that I’ve been saying"the claim you made was objective in nature, not that it was true." You’re demonstrably failing to comprehend what was repeatedly spelled out for you – first as a direct answer to your chosen question, and on and on throughout thereafter.
Anyhow, to bring on the nested quotes:
to which you replied:
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
Because the definition says nothing about testability.
[/QUOTE]
Evading the basic chain of logic:
If the condition of truth is explicitly not judgements made by a conscious entity or subject, then those conditions are implicitly an observation or test (whatever word you care to dumbly object to) upon the natural world that exists outside of a conscious entity of subject.
[/QUOTE]
But the conditions are not implicitly an observation or test; there’s nothing at all implicit about the specified conditions; they’re explicitly defined in terms of being mind-independent, which rules out any mind-dependent word you care to insert. That’s precisely why the Wiki definition doesn’t include any mind-dependent test or observation; it’s out to do the exact opposite, by requiring the truth conditions to be mind-independent.
…which you don’t provide. Convenient, that.
I’ll respond in kind: the primary definition given for “meaningful” is, unsurprisingly, “intended to show meaning” – where “meaning” is primarily defined in terms of “what it expresses or represents”, with no requirement of more. What dictionary are you using?
But if those properties are mind-independent, then whether or not you know them is by definition irrelevant to whether it has those properties. As per the Wiki cite you’re unaccountably fond of: “If it is true that reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown”. I’ll then refer back to the dictionary definition of “properties”, which likewise doesn’t require them to have been observed. While I like the move where you parenthetically introduce a quick assertion about what you assume is the relevant context, I’m not interested in so limiting the discussion.
Well, no; the bit you lopped off there was your claim that “A large portion of physicists believe that it is not.” I wanted a cite as to whether a large portion of physicists believe that.
Er, no; you’re not perceiving the moon when you’re merely imagining the moon. Good heavens, do you think you can collapse a probability waveform by [del]perceiving it[/del] imagining it? Would you testify under oath that you witnessed a murder if you only ever, y’know, visualized it?
What, you’re suggesting I am lying? This is absurd, considering the definition I provided can be found in a variety of sources (here was the very first google result), pretty much all you have to do is google. Incredibly easy to verify. But you didn’t do that. Apparently I have to babysit you through this process of basic communication. (Btw, the dictionary I was using was Dictionary v2.1.3 for the Macintosh – the most convenient option for me).
This has to be one of the most desperate, idiotic things I have been confronted with in a SDMB discussion in weeks. You want me to cite you a study regarding the percentage of physicists’ opinions on the question of reality being mind-independent? This is sort of like asking for a study regarding mathematicians’ opinion on whether 2+2=4. I doubt such a study exists; the best I can do is assure you that as an expert in the field, it is true. I can also cite the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Read. Go to town. You could stand to learn something. The fact is (and this is absolutely basic, run-of-the-mill quantum mechanics 101) that reality is not well-defined until a measurement takes place. Physicists are of different opinion on the interpretation of this fact; many believe (and I cited examples in my previous post) that there is no reality until measurement. Perhaps read about Wheeler’s (one of the greats) “Participatory anthropic principle”.
And I have been repeating (this will be the fourth time now… it is clear you simply do not understand it) the exact same understanding of your position:
the theorem that [the moon being made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties] exist[s] objectively is not proven until objective evidence is found
(This time I have replaced “they” with the relevant reference in brackets, since it is the only way I can make this any clearer)
I can’t imagine you are debating in good faith with these semantic games. Is this how you try to “win” an argument? By obfuscation? Of course one can perceive something without collapsing its wave-function – it merely has to be a hallucination (or any subjective mental phenomena involving ones imagination and the perceptive centers of the brain).
We are discussing a moon that is made of cheese (but only when NOT looked at or measured in any way). So it is in every case completely indistinguishable from the ordinary moon. This cheese-moon cannot be perceived objectively, by definition. Note when I say “by definition”, I am referring to the first sentence in this paragraph… the part in parentheticals… can you go back and look at it? See it? See the definition? This cheese-moon cannot be perceived objectively by definition. In other words, if I declare that “the cheese moon exists!” and invite others to objectively verify my claim, it will not be objectively verifiable in principle. This is in contrast to the fact that I can nonetheless go ahead and posit, subjectively, that such a thing exists. Effectively, the cheese-moon, if posited, must by elimination be a subjective aesthetic. Why not the pepperoni moon? Both are equally unprovable and unfalsifiable… the opinion is subjective, even though you seem to be confused by the fact that the subjective opinion is regarding what could (under other circumstances, namely if it weren’t impossible in principle) be objective.
This is absolutely false. Much of philosophy, such as Logic or Metaphysics, does not even concern people except in some tangential sense. More importantly, you can deal with questions of consciousness or language without having an intuitive grasp of others’ emotions.
Excellent example. In order to be “philosophical” you have to be a deep thinker about life…cows ARE life! And she changed their lives forever BECAUSE of her philosophy…do unto others as you would have them do unto you(not a direct quote, Temple is very empathetic) She could literally feel and see what the cows were experiencing, and it devastated her. So her moral code and deep thinking changed things forever. She not only thought deep thoughts, but acted on them. Something most humans don’t have the faith in their own philosophies to do!
The link you just provided gives the following for the primary definition:
I agree with that definition. I adore that definition. The entire reason I wanted you to supply a definition was because I’d hoped you’d provide something that backed my argument rather than yours; you have.
Remember, my position is that “meaningful” merely needs to convey something intelligible; you’re the one trying to insert a requirement beyond that. It’s incredibly easy to verify which of us was correct; you’ve just done so.
But that’s not mere repetition; you’re now changing the item under discussion. Look carefully at that italicized bit you’d typed out: your question there pertains to whether it’s an objective claim. Your restatement here regards whether existence is proven until objective evidence is found – which is a completely different point.
I’m making an objective claim – possibly true, possibly false – when I make a statement about objective facts; proving whether it’s objectively true or false is a different kind of undertaking, requiring all sorts of unrelated concepts and terminology, which the English language naturally provides. Whether something tastes good is also a different kind of undertaking, for which we have yet another perfectly intelligible word at hand: subjective.
Whether you can posit the cheese-moon is irrelevant to whether you can perceive it – subjectively or objectively. Likewise, that it may not be objectively verifiable – in principle or in practice – is irrelevant to whether it happens to be objectively true or false; whether we can know whether something is true or false is a separate question from whether it is true or false.
Er, no. The reason you don’t collapse the wave-function of that “something” when you’re merely dealing with a hallucination of it is because you’re dealing with the subjective hallucination instead of the objective “something”.
Only if you’re going to post that “A large portion of physicists believe that it is not.” You offered that claim.
It is nothing but purposefully deceitful to pick out the primary definition of the word from the linked definition as “proving you are right”, when the second definition is the obviously relevant one:
Have you ever read philosophy?! Start with Plato. The “arguing over petty details” are the best parts and the passages where Socrates proclaims the Truth ex cathedra (see the Phaedo) are the worst.
In answer to the OP, Immanuel Kant was probably the philosopher Most Likely to Be Diagnosed as an Idiot Savant. (Nietzsche’s diagnosis would be far more interesting.) But, in most cases, you have to look at a philosopher’s biography to determine that sort of thing; reading his books will provide little insight.
Have you ever read philosophy?! Start with Plato. The “arguing over petty details” are the best parts and the passages where Socrates proclaims the Truth ex cathedra (see the Phaedo) are the worst.