If I say “dogs exist” but someone else believes that all dogs I see are “wolves” and not “dogs” then as far as they are concerned I am wrong.
I could give them a book showing the differences in dog and wolf anatomy but that assumes they will accept the differences are big enough to agree that they are two different animals which they won’t unless it fits their belief of evidence or they face social pressure to accept my belief as the truth.
@indiasoale there is no ability to observe anything objectively. What you "see" are electrical pulses converted by the brain based on what the eyes have detected. The eyes, due to evolution, are only capable of detecting certain things in certain ways.
You could also play here with the different levels of subjectivity. At the ultimate level, everything is the same.
It's a very difficult thing that I think about a lot.
@withoutclass The subjective mind is part of the objective, physical world.
What you see is based on social constructions. If I see a chair then that may be my view of what a chair is but to someone else it is a ‘stool’ not a ‘chair.’
The eyes do not simply ‘see things’ or ‘not see things’, seeing is a spectrum. Is turquoise green or blue? It’s subjective. If one person cannot ‘see’ certain colours that doesn’t mean that they aren’t looking at them.
Unfortunately I will have to disagree strongly that what you see is based on social construction. This is the multiple levels that I alluded to earlier. On one level, you have an experience of seeing a thing. If you choose not to make it into a "thing", then you will not add any conceptual layer to it. There is no "chair" or "stool" at all. "Chair" and "stool" are concepts, they are additions/overlays to experience.
@withoutclass Without the concepts of ‘chair’ or ‘stool’ there are no chairs or stools because to create a chair or a stool one has to have a concept of what ‘chair’ or ‘stool’ is.
If humans are no longer around, the existing chairs and stools may stick around, but then they’re not chairs or stools anymore, they’re now whatever nature decides to do with them which could be ‘home for a termite.’
So the psychological overlay or concept is integral to the physical reality.
@indiasoale well said, but the concepts exist nowhere in physical reality. There is "what is", and then whatever overlay gets applied.
"Chair" is useful, it conveys a shared idea. A thing that looks like this and has this form, I say "chair" to quickly share information. But still there is no chair beyond the concept.
@withoutclass That there is no chair without the concept of a chair is no different to saying that without water there is no physical reality of a plant.
The concept from the physical brain is an ingredient of the chair.
If concepts did not exist in physical reality as water exists in physical reality then the physical form of a wooden chair would be no different to any other wood.
If a bee’s behaviour did not exist in physical reality then a bee hive would not manifest.
"If concepts did not exist in physical reality as water exists in physical reality then the physical form of a wooden chair would be no different to any other wood. "
Exactly. A chair is both "chair" and not-chair. Without the concept of chair, you could still sit on the thing we call a chair. Chair is made up of not-chair. Wood, screws, or perhaps glue even. You could even call the thing we call as "chair" a flumble, and nothing would change at all.
@withoutclass Without the human observer called a ‘sitter’ the object referred to as a ‘chair’ would no longer be a ‘chair’ because there is no longer a sitter around to maintain that object as a ‘chair.’
Calling a chair ‘wood for fireplace’ might lead to a chair being broken down and used as wood on a fire so the observation can influence the form of the physical object.
@indiasoale I don't think I would conflate concepts with action. If you call a chair wood for a fire, nothing happens without action. A chair is both a chair and wood for a fire, or a door stop, or any other myriad things because concepts don't have any impact on the object itself. Concepts only exist in the mind and have no impact on the current structure of the underlying not-chair that composes "chair". No matter the concept, the object is just however it is.
@withoutclass If thoughts truly are part of the physical world then why does one feel as though they are separate?
Because it is the instinct of all things to control or dominate their environment.
When we say something is not us (i.e the physical world) what we’re really saying is that it is foreign to us. It does not adhere wholly to our will and therefore we do not accept being the same as it.
But the other perspective that we are one with it is equally true.
Add comment