Can there be an object without any subject?

[Juma]

Mm is "represents" better to you?

I think this is a language/translation problem?

I don't think 'represents' works any better.

In my terminology, an object does not represent or refer to anything; on the contrary: words, terms, refer to and represent the object.

An object is something that is detached from the surroundings. This discrimination can be totally ambigious as in "the upper half of the haystack". Or "the red part of the cloud". Thus objects are a result of information handling.
Moreover:
An apple is an object with flavour and colour. Flavour and colour are created by our sensory organs. The feature in the real world which we represents as an apple has neither color nor flavour.

 

[fast]

I think the word you are struggling for is 'is'.

'That object is a feature of the real world'

No. Definitely not. Objects are what humans create to represent features of the real world.

Humans identify and classify the objects we perceive, but the objects perceived, identified and classified exist independent of our perception, identification and classification. Classification may be a human endeavor, but that which is classifiable still exists independent of us.

 

[fast]

Words denote. Words denote meaning. Words stand in place of meaning. In our lexicon, words denote lexical meaning. Words outside of our lexicon can also denote meaning. One instance would be a stipulative meaning.

What a word means is a function of how fluent speakers collectively use words. Hence, a word is not a function of what any one given person may mean by his or use of a term--so much for the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning!

Some terms are composed of more than one word. Hence, there are such things as two-worded terms and three-worded terms. There are such things as noun phrases. Although there are differences, I tend to use "words" and "terms" interchangeably.

Words also refer. Not all words refer. Words that refer are called referring terms, and words that don't are called non-referring terms. We shouldn't confuse meaning with reference. The word, "cat" has a meaning, and the word "cat" has a referent. The word "cat" is a referring term. The word, "although" has a meaning, but the word, "although" doesn't have a referent. There is nothing to instantiate that non-referring term (that of course has a lexical meaning).

Words also have definitions. There is a subtle (yet I think important) distinction between the meaning of a word and the definition of a word. If you look to the authoritative source (dictionaries) for the meaning of a word, you will find definitions which will help assist you to glean what a word means, but meaning itself (usage!) (and not only that, but collective usage) is not housed where the written definitions are housed.

There's more, but I thought I'd share.

Oh, objects don't refer.

 

[ontological_realist]

I think this is a language/translation problem?

I don't think 'represents' works any better.

In my terminology, an object does not represent or refer to anything; on the contrary: words, terms, refer to and represent the object.

An object is something that is detached from the surroundings. This discrimination can be totally ambigious as in "the upper half of the haystack". Or "the red part of the cloud". Thus objects are a result of information handling.
Moreover:
An apple is an object with flavour and colour. Flavour and colour are created by our sensory organs. The feature in the real world which we represent as an apple has neither color nor flavour.

Juma wrote," An apple is an object with flavor and color. Flavor and color are created by our sensory organs. The feature in the real world which we represent as an apple has neither color nor flavor."


Seems convincing.

 

[fast]

An object is something that is detached from the surroundings. This discrimination can be totally ambigious as in "the upper half of the haystack". Or "the red part of the cloud". Thus objects are a result of information handling.
Moreover:
An apple is an object with flavour and colour. Flavour and colour are created by our sensory organs. The feature in the real world which we represent as an apple has neither color nor flavour.

Juma wrote," An apple is an object with flavor and color. Flavor and color are created by our sensory organs. The feature in the real world which we represent as an apple has neither color nor flavor."


Seems convincing.

If the apple were not already flavorful, we would find it flavorable. If the apple were not red, we would not find that it's red when we see it.

 

[ontological_realist]

Continued from post no. 84:-

So the brilliant red colored, nice smelling apple on the table in front of you is a representation of some thing which is more or less different from it.

Similarly the table in front of you is a representation of some thing which is more or less different from this table.

Similarly the whole room and every thing in the room is a representation of some thing which is more or less different from it.

 

[ontological_realist]

Juma wrote," An apple is an object with flavor and color. Flavor and color are created by our sensory organs. The feature in the real world which we represent as an apple has neither color nor flavor."


Seems convincing.

If the apple were not already flavorful, we would find it flavorable. If the apple were not red, we would not find that it's red when we see it.

If I understand you correctly, you have a very good point here. Seems to me you are saying that some apples we find to be red and others green, why is that?

Perhaps it is because we represent some thing in actual reality as red and some thing else as green. By actual reality I mean that reality of which we are making representation of.

At present I think so, but I could be wrong. I am open to your suggestions. I do not have any beliefs to defend.

 

[ontological_realist]

Continued:-

The representations which one person will make will also be different from the representations which another person will make.

 

[fast]

If the apple were not already flavorful, we would find it flavorable. If the apple were not red, we would not find that it's red when we see it.

If I understand you correctly, you have a very good point here. Seems to me you are saying that some apples we find to be red and others green, why is that?

Perhaps it is because we represent some thing in actual reality as red and some thing else as green. By actual reality I mean that reality of which we are making representation of.

At present I think so, but I could be wrong. I am open to your suggestions. I do not have any beliefs to defend.

I should have added a "not" earlier; I appreciate your forgiveness on that.


To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.

- - - Updated - - -

Continued:-

The representations which one person will make will also be different from the representations which another person will make.

I'm not following anything when that word is used.

 

[ontological_realist]

If I understand you correctly, you have a very good point here. Seems to me you are saying that some apples we find to be red and others green, why is that?

Perhaps it is because we represent some thing in actual reality as red and some thing else as green. By actual reality I mean that reality of which we are making representation of.

At present I think so, but I could be wrong. I am open to your suggestions. I do not have any beliefs to defend.

I should have added a "not" earlier; I appreciate your forgiveness on that.


To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.

- - - Updated - - -

Continued:-

The representations which one person will make will also be different from the representations which another person will make.

I'm not following anything when that word is used.

Unless I am mistaken I think that I understand your point of view and where you are coming from. But I am far from clear about your this post. So I can not answer that.

By representation I mean what you and most people call objects or things like tables and chairs etc.

See, I am inclined to think that these things are merely representations of some thing else and that something is what actually exists.

I know it sounds very strange and perhaps will be incomprehensible to most people.

But reality maybe stranger than fiction!

Like you I completely go by deductive logic and I will not accept any thing which is self contradictory.

 

[Juma]

I should have added a "not" earlier; I appreciate your forgiveness on that.

To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.
.

That is no argument for that objects are manifest in the real world. It is an argument for that humans are capable of consistently represent real world features with objects.

 

[ryan]

I should have added a "not" earlier; I appreciate your forgiveness on that.

To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.
.

... It is an argument for that humans are capable of consistently represent real world features with objects.

Don't you mean "perceptions" and not "objects"? I think I know what you are going for, and I agree with you. But the word "object" implies something that exists outside of the mind whether it is true or not.

 

[fast]

I should have added a "not" earlier; I appreciate your forgiveness on that.


To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.

- - - Updated - - -

Continued:-

The representations which one person will make will also be different from the representations which another person will make.

I'm not following anything when that word is used.

Unless I am mistaken I think that I understand your point of view and where you are coming from. But I am far from clear about your this post. So I can not answer that.

By representation I mean what you and most people call objects or things like tables and chairs etc.

See, I am inclined to think that these things are merely representations of some thing else and that something is what actually exists.

I know it sounds very strange and perhaps will be incomprehensible to most people.

But reality maybe stranger than fiction!

Like you I completely go by deductive logic and I will not accept any thing which is self contradictory.

But that which I sit in is a chair. It's not like a map (a representation of the terrain). It is what any representation of a chair would in fact be a representation of--the actual chair. If I were the last person alive and died while sitting, there would be no human mental percepts of that which I sat upon, but that upon which I sat would still be a chair, not some representation of a chair. A drawing of a chair could be used to represent a chair, much like a figurine on a table could be used to represent a house and Coke cans could then be used to represent (stand in place of) cars. That which is fact before us is in fact it itself. That we have the mental capacity to divide the atoms of the world and see an object before us and call those clumps of atoms something and give it a name does not therefore mean those things we perceive are something other than what they are. Those clumps of atoms is the referent to which the term refers.

 

[Juma]

... It is an argument for that humans are capable of consistently represent real world features with objects.

Don't you mean "perceptions" and not "objects"? I think I know what you are going for, and I agree with you. But the word "object" implies something that exists outside of the mind whether it is true or not.

No it doesnt. A lot of words were invented before anyone really understood what they represented. No one thinks that atoms are indivisible today. So that the word "object"is similar to "objective" doesnt not mean that it is.

 

[Perspicuo]

One must distinguish object and thing.

Subject is the observing part, object is the observed part of a system of information exchange. 'Object' is part of a system of which 'subject' is also a part of. Object does not mean thing and subject does not mean person. A person becomes a subject when you are analyzing his/her role in the system. A thing becomes an object when you are analyzing its role in the system.

Don't let words confuse you.

OK lets call object a thing. If one observes a thing and considers it in some way it's an object. If those considerations actually do apply to the thing then the thing could be called the object without needing the one who considered it considering it. In this case there is a thing and it in some respect it is the object. Now if we remove the observer understanding the thing has properties exactly as seen by the one who would have considered it is not that thing the object?

Seems to me that there need be no subject required to observe a thing for that thing to be the object.

just sayin.....

No, an object is not a thing.
Object in philosophy is the the target of an observation or an action. Subject is the observer or agent.

A thing is an entity, whether or not it is being observed.

 

[Juma]

A thing is an entity, whether or not it is being observed.

Entity and thing is just other words for objects.

 

[tantric]

This is the point where we switch to Sanskrit, which has very clear terms for such things.

Form (rūpa) arises from experientially irreducible physical/physiological phenomena.

The coming together of an external object (such as a sound) and its associated internal sense organ (such as the ear) — gives rise to consciousness (viññāṇa • vijñāṇa)

The concurrence of an object, its sense organ and the related consciousness (viññāṇa • vijñāṇa) is called "contact" (phassa • sparśa).

From the contact of form and consciousness arise the three mental (nāma) aggregates of feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā• saṃjñā) and mental formation (saṅkhāra • saṃskāra).

The mental aggregates can then in turn give rise to additional consciousness that leads to the arising of additional mental aggregates

So not object, but sparsa, a contact - a form/external object which has been sensed and known.

 

[ryan]

Don't you mean "perceptions" and not "objects"? I think I know what you are going for, and I agree with you. But the word "object" implies something that exists outside of the mind whether it is true or not.

No it doesnt. A lot of words were invented before anyone really understood what they represented. No one thinks that atoms are indivisible today. So that the word "object"is similar to "objective" doesnt not mean that it is.

There are objects and then there are perceptions of objects. The object is the "source" of what is being perceived.

 

[ontological_realist]

To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.

If moon appears to be bigger than stars to most people, then it is true that moon appears bigger than stars to most people. But that does not mean that the moon is bigger than stars.


If an apple appears red to most people then it is true that it appears red to most people. But that does not mean that the apple is red.

How any thing appears to humans is subjective to humans. It does not make it an objective feature of the cosmos ( all that actually exists).

.

 

[fast]

To ask about whether an apple is green or red is to ask about its color, but there is a human element involved. For instance, consider an apple that is regarded by most people in normal lighting as red. Even if such an apple were to appear differently to either a person with vision issues (like color blindness) or animals with peculiar vision accuities, the apple is still red. I would say that such an apple appears red to people with good vision and lighting and that it's still red when we all close our eyes. If it wouldn't appear red when our good eyes are open in proper lighting, then it's not red when we're asleep.

If moon appears to be bigger than stars to most people, then it is true that moon appears bigger than stars to most people. But that does not mean that the moon is bigger than stars.


If an apple appears red to most people then it is true that it appears red to most people. But that does not mean that the apple is red.

How any thing appears to humans is subjective to humans. It does not make it an objective feature of the cosmos ( all that actually exists).

.

i agree with you. I agree with you.

There's something about color, however, that makes how humans perceive it important. It's more of a lexical oddity that I don't have the energy to deal with at the moment.