RE: Is subjectivity just a matter of context?
May 12, 2014 at 8:50 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2014 at 8:59 am by Coffee Jesus.)
Don't be fooled by their small mass. Electrons are large waves until you try to get particle behavior out of them.
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.
(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!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.
This is cheating. If we are talking about the relationship between subjective and objective realities, then you must accept experiences as they are experienced.
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.
