|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Bouldering:
Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
Mar 31, 2007, 5:06 AM
Views: 4375
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
jt512 wrote: fracture wrote: In reply to: But regardless, all those divisions actually exist, whether they are useful to any organism, or not. They exist now. Lots of things exist now that didn't before complex organisms evolved. Consciousness, for example. Sure, but not the wavelengths of the emissions from the combustion of strontium, the number of planets revolving around the sun, Planck's constant, and the speed of light.
I don't disagree. (I thought I already said that.)
... Let me see if I can lay this out as clearly as possible. (Also I'll mention that it'd really help if you employ the principle of charity: try to understand before trying to refute.)
When we look back at the history of the universe, including the history before our own existence, and describe it, we are doing so using the features of the brain that we've evolved to have. (Again: not a disputable point, or at least not by appeal to Hawking; you might try Michael Behe if you're desperate.)
What this means is that we can (and do) say there were eight planets in our solar system 3.5 billion years ago, and we mean the same thing we mean when we say there are eight planets in our solar system now. And there are (and were) eight planets in our solar system: it's a fact. However (and as a direct result of the theory of natural selection), what it means to say that---what it means for that to be a fact---is slightly different from what we have traditionally taken it to mean. It is a claim about reality, yes, but it is also a claim partially about a particular type of primate brain (which is, of course, now part of reality).
Division of the universe into separate "objects" can be done in any number of ways. Some ways are interesting to organisms like us, and some aren't. My position is not the same as saying objects don't exist (I'm neither an object- nor a number-eliminativist), but it is also false to say that objects are part of reality in a mind-independent way (whatever you want to call that). What I'm saying is that they are useful fictions---they are theoretical creations used by minds to reason about things more efficiently. They exist, just like numbers and colors, but you have to look at things the right way in order to see them.
Since there are so many ways to divide the universe into objects, prior to the evolution of minds either nothing could have been meaningfully "said" regarding the number of planets in our solar system, or pretty much anything could be said (based on the near-infinite number of possible object-division methods that could, however slim the chances, be used by some future organism with a mind); but as long as the same idea is meant, it doesn't really matter which way you want to describe it. (Your statement above that "all those divisions exist" could jive with the latter, if you want.) This issue isn't particularly important, except that it can be used to help in understanding what it means now for it to be true that "there are (and were) eight planets in our solar system". (And yes, I know it is also obvious that nothing could've actually been said, regardless of what could hypothetically "meaningfully" be said: no minds existed either to do the saying or to grok the meaning.)
More about color might help, since it is a lot less fundamental in our thinking than objects. Color-vision and color evolved at the same time (organisms became flashier as other organisms developed ways to detect that flashiness). It is inherently organism-relative, and it is much easier to explain why than it is with numbers or object-division or "folk psychology" stuff: different organisms have different types of cells in their retinas. For example, we have trichromatic vision-systems, while pigeons detect color using a tetra-chromatic system.
So does red exist? Well, yes. It exists in a way similar to centers of gravity or numbers. And when we think about red as if it were a property of a surface (or as a property of light), we are engaging in a form of metaphorical reasoning that uses fictional concepts to make its deductions. It isn't sensical to call it "false" reasoning, because the deductions are made in a (mostly) inference-preserving way---in this situation (a brain evolved by natural selection), the results are what matter, not the shortcuts used to compute them. So the "property of redness" does "exist" (there's no denying everyday sentences like "red exists" or "that ball is red"), but it exists metaphorically (as a useful fiction---an abstract way to think about something more complex).
In reply to: Your earlier point was that numbers are inherently metaphors; mine is that they are not. They are inherent to the Universe.
What does that mean? (If you're saying numbers are extremely useful for describing the Universe, I agree.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 31, 2007, 6:16 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:09 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:10 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:23 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:25 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:29 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:31 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:43 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 5:46 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 6:03 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 6:04 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 6:09 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 6:15 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 31, 2007, 6:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
