(May 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 11, 2014 at 10:08 am)Confused Ape Wrote: So, what is objectively real about the chair? Our experience of it as a solid object or the fact that it's mostly empty space?

Our definition of 'solid' describes a state of matter in which the arrangement of atoms/molecules are structurally rigid. It is not contingent upon density. So, there is no conflict here.

Maybe in chemistry or physics, that's true. But when I look at my desk, I see it as smooth. I perceive the flatness of its surface as a single, continuous form. Redefining flatness to refer to the standard deviation of particles from a virtual plane or whatever doesn't SOLVE this duality in thinking-- it brings it to the fore. Clearly, your definition of "solid" begs the question: it demands that all perceptions be redefined to conform with the "objective reality" of the physical monist model-- and then goes on to show that all reality conforms with the physical monist model!

This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.

(May 11, 2014 at 6:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Maybe in chemistry or physics, that's true. But when I look at my desk, I see it as smooth. I perceive the flatness of its surface as a single, continuous form. Redefining flatness to refer to the standard deviation of particles from a virtual plane or whatever doesn't SOLVE this duality in thinking-- it brings it to the fore. Clearly, your definition of "solid" begs the question: it demands that all perceptions be redefined to conform with the "objective reality" of the physical monist model-- and then goes on to show that all reality conforms with the physical monist model!

This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.

By volume, many solid things are mostly empty space even on our level of experience. Buildings, cars, aircraft carriers. The fact that they are mostly empty things doesn't make them not solid to our perception. I'm not trying to redefine what solid means, but rather point out that even our colloquial understanding of solidity allows for a lot of wiggle room.

Take two steel balls, only one is hollow and one is not. Even to our everyday understanding, they are still both very solid objects, even though one may be more gas than solid, by volume.

What I'm saying is, your desk is thick and sturdy to our perspective, mostly empty on the atomic scale, yet solid on both levels. I'm not attempting to redefine anything. Something which isn't in the proper atomic configuration to produce a solid state is something we probably wouldn't identify as solid on our own level, unless we were using the term in a somewhat more poetic sense, to describe something that isn't actually solid at all, but shares characteristics which evoke solidity (such as, "solid wall of sound").

(May 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Our definition of 'solid' describes a state of matter in which the arrangement of atoms/molecules are structurally rigid. It is not contingent upon density. So, there is no conflict here.

That definition suits everything which we experience as being solid in our everyday lives. Density is important, though.

Crazy-Dense Neutron Stars Reveal Their Secrets

Quote:Scientists have uncovered a new key to understanding the strange workings of neutron stars — objects so dense they pack the mass of multiple suns into a space smaller than a city.

Neutron stars are born when massive stars run out of fuel for nuclear fusion and collapse. They expel their outer layers, and their cores fall inward under the pull of gravity to become denser and denser. Eventually, the pressure is so great that even atoms cannot retain their structure, and they collapse. Protons and electrons essentially melt into each other, producing neutrons as well as lightweight particles called neutrinos. The end result is a star whose mass is 90percent neutrons. [Graphic: Inside a Neutron Star]

So back to my question. What is objectively real about the chair? Our experience of it as a solid object or the fact that it's mostly empty space? But is the chair being mostly empty space a fact? Does this fact depend on how one is defining empty space? I found an interesting discussion about it on Physics Forums - Atoms are 'nothing but' space versus 'mostly' space

Here's an informative article by Dr.Christopher S. Baird on the subject.

Why don’t atoms collapse if they are mostly empty space?

Quote:Atoms are not mostly empty space because there is no such thing as purely empty space. Rather, space is filled with a wide variety of particles and fields. Sucking all the particles and fields out of a certain volume won’t make the space completely empty because new particles will still flash into existence due to vacuum energy. Additionally, the Higgs field can’t be removed. Even if we ignore every kind of field and particle except electrons, protons and neutrons, we find that atoms are still not empty. Atoms are filled with electrons. It’s true that a large percentage of the atom’s mass is concentrated in its tiny nucleus, but that does not imply that the rest of the atom is empty. Rather, it implies that the rest of the atom has relatively low density.

Don't be fooled by their small mass. Electrons are large waves until you try to get particle behavior out of them.

(May 11, 2014 at 6:59 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Clearly, your definition of "solid" begs the question: it demands that all perceptions be redefined to conform with the "objective reality" of the physical monist model-- and then goes on to show that all reality conforms with the physical monist model!

This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.

I do accept that. I accept that that's how I percieve it, but not that that's an objective description of it. That's why I can reconsile it with scientific descriptions.
Your description of the surface is strongly intersubjective, which is why it has meaning to others, but a chemical description is more objective.

All science is based on how we percieve the world. We only percieve electrons through an electron microscope, but we can still percieve them. Even if we were still merely inferring the probable existence of electrons, the inference should follow from the coherence rules that are built into all languages, grammatical or mathematical. Talking about the subatomic doesn't require an addition to the basic principles of language, but merely that you stick with its principles all the way until you realize that electrons are the only coherent conclusion.

In this case, you are going against rules regarding the application of Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Something which isn't in the proper atomic configuration to produce a solid state is something we probably wouldn't identify as solid on our own level This is because they are the same object. The flat object is also the object with aligned molecules. Talking about it in different senses doesn't make it two different things.

That post was stupid!

We can't perceive electrons through electron microscopes, but we can perceive individual atoms through them. I guess I wasn't thinking about that.

To the OP, is your awareness of pain real? How you answer that sets the course.

My awareness of pain is real, and the pain itself is real. Per my definition of "subjectivity" as a form of context-dependence, mental experiences are not subjective. Using "subjective" to mean "of the mind" appears to be the only accepted usage that is an exception. All other uses denote some sort of context-dependence for the meanings of statements. For example, "Men are sexy" denotes the speaker's personal perception of men, so its meaning and its truth or falsity depend on who the speaker is. However, it is objectively true that some people find men sexy, so the statement is objectively true for some people, and objectively false for others.

(May 13, 2014 at 3:20 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Per my definition of "subjectivity" as a form of context-dependence, mental experiences are not subjective. Using "subjective" to mean "of the mind" appears to be the only accepted usage that is an exception. All other uses denote some sort of context-dependence for the meanings of statements.

Just my personal opinion here.

Your definition of the word still doesn't alter the fact that mental experiences are subjective. I'll give you one of my own experiences as an example.

The last time I visited Wigmore Castle on the Welsh border I was looking through a hole in the stonework. All of a sudden I felt a looming presence behind me but there wasn't anyone behind me. It was a creepy sort of sensation but I'm used to this kind of thing and just ignored it. The presence disappeared when I went to another part of the castle ruins.

Let's say I did a survey and published the results as "30% of adults report feeling disembodied presences." We can use your definition in this context. "Adults report feeling disembodied presences" is objectively true for 30% of adults and objectively false for the other 70%.

I'm now moving on to neuroscience which will require a little bit of preparation - How Ghosts Work.

Quote:In some haunted locations, researchers have measured magnetic fields that are stronger than normal or which exhibit unusual fluctuations. These may be localized phenomena that stem from electronic equipment or geological formations, or they may be part of the Earth's magnetic field.

Medical researchers have also studied the effects of electrical fields on people's brains. Electrical stimulation to the angular gyrus of the brain, for example, can cause the sensation of someone behind you mimicking your movements

Low-frequency Sound Waves

Several experiments have demonstrated that low-frequency sound waves, known as infrasound, can cause phenomena that people typically associate with ghosts. This includes feelings of nervousness and discomfort as well as a sense of a presence in the room.

There's another interpretation of the magnetic field idea, though.

Quote:Some paranormal investigators think of this as proof of a supernatural presence -- the ghosts create the field.

"Something is happening in the brains of people who feel disembodied presences" is objectively true.

"Infrasound and magnetic fields cause some brains to produce the feeling of disembodied presences." This seems to be objectively true going by research so far.

So, we could say that "Feeling disembodied presences is an objectively real phenomenon."

I'm going to adapt the scale of probability for this one. "Disembodied beings don't cause the feeling of presences because disembodied beings don't exist". This is probably true to 6.999 out of 7 on the probability scale. The 0.001 is the very remote possibility that somebody will find evidence for disembodied beings who can create magnetic fields so people can feel their presences.

Statistics and neuroscience are only talking about the experiences of feeling presences, though. They aren't the actual experiences that some people have. My own experience at Wigmore Castle felt as real as any other experience so it was subjectively real. From the neuroscience point of view I experienced an objectively real phenomenon.

(May 14, 2014 at 8:55 am)Confused Ape Wrote: "Something is happening in the brains of people who feel disembodied presences" is objectively true.

"Infrasound and magnetic fields cause some brains to produce the feeling of disembodied presences." This seems to be objectively true going by research so far.

So, we could say that "Feeling disembodied presences is an objectively real phenomenon."

If you think a magnetic field counts as a "disembodied presence", then I guess you could say that.

(May 14, 2014 at 8:55 am)Confused Ape Wrote: My own experience at Wigmore Castle felt as real as any other experience so it was subjectively real. From the neuroscience point of view I experienced an objectively real phenomenon.

The experience was real. The statement of having that experience is a true statement when you're the one making it.

(May 14, 2014 at 9:42 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote: If you think a magnetic field counts as a "disembodied presence", then I guess you could say that.

I didn't say anything about a magnetic field counting as a disembodied presence.

Quote:"Infrasound and magnetic fields cause some brains to produce the feeling of disembodied presences."

Eating magic mushrooms causes brains to produce hallucinations but the mushrooms themselves aren't hallucinations.