Physics: What is an Object?

Those who believe that a Dictionary is the ultimate authority on definitions, please copy/paste an unambiguous and non-contradictory definition of OBJECT and shut Wonka's mouth!

What Is an Object?

People often use the word “object” without having a clue what it means. Physics is the study of objects; real objects which are said to exist. Physics does not study something which cannot possibly exist. But Mathematicians haven’t a clue what an object is because they can’t even define the term. So how can they possibly be doing Physics? Mathematics has nothing to do with Physics. The so-called “Mathematical Physicists” are not doing Physics; they are doing Math because Math is the study of concepts, not the study of objects.

Object: that which has shape.

It’s that simple. All objects have shape, whether they are abstract objects whose shape is dependent on an observer’s conception, or real objects whose shape is a standalone property and observer-independent.

Reality is comprised of objects. All objects can be illustrated whether they are invisible or not. The invisible objects which mediate the phenomena we call light, gravity and magnetism can certainly be hypothesized. The Hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method is used to illustrate all the objects which will be used as “actors” to explain how they mediate natural phenomena. This explanation is the Theory stage of the Scientific Method.

Light, gravity, magnetism and electricity are all mediated by objects. You simply cannot conceptualize motion without an object being present. Matterless motion is impossible. Anyone talking about dynamic phenomena, like electricity or magnetism, had better have some hypothesized object moving and mediating these phenomena. Now, the entities mediating these phenomena may be invisible to us humans because our sensory system does not have the bandwidth or sensitivity to be stimulated by the whole light spectrum. But this doesn’t mean that there isn’t something (i.e. object) out there performing these actions. Otherwise, you are talking about the motion of nothing, which implies that “nothing” is performing actions which mediate phenomena. This is clearly impossible.

The Universe can only be described as the relation of something (matter) to nothing (space). There is no other option besides something vs nothing. The nouns of reality are necessarily objects which are said to exist. This means that the subject of your discussion had better be a noun of reality if you want to give it the capability to move and interact with other objects. The nouns of grammar like “love” and “bravery” are not objects. They have no shape/form. They cannot possibly have a surface or physical presence. Thus, they cannot possibly be real and exist in reality. Such nouns of grammar are concepts. All concepts are relations which are necessarily predicated on existing objects. Without objects, you cannot even conceive of any concept.

Humans identify reality’s binary system with the labels of “object” and “concept”. These are the only two options which any sentient being can conceptualize to correspond to reality. There is no other option besides something (object) vs nothing (concept).

288

272

5

2

Popular

26

18

• A Scientific Guide To Understanding Escape Velocity

0

Submit a Comment

• Johan Smulders 4 years ago from East London, South Africa

Some interresting concepts that challenge the brain.

• PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist The God Particle was found.

God Particle proves that the big bang happened, This means that fatfist hudpages are all wrong.

• Allen 4 years ago

@PrometheusKid

Haha. I think it was "evidence" may have been "detected" in order to prove how "mass" ... you know the "stuff that makes the stars, planets, even people " ...arose in the universe! But, they stopped short of saying it was or that it is (From an article in the Boston Herald).

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Evidence has to do with Religion, not Physics.

That fact that we are here, is EVIDENCE that we and the universe were created by a loving God who wanted to gives us life. Nobody can disprove this evidence....I mean nobody! Anybody who tries to will be arguing in circles.

The clowns of math & atheism will use evidence to push THEIR Religion, but will outright deny the evidence of YOUR Religion.

Evidence = Opinion = Religion

• Allen 4 years ago

@Fatfist

I don't know who you were responding to, but that was the gist of my point to PK. These mathematicians made an announcement basically saying they have evidence of a concept of which they are uncertain and can't quite tell us about! LOL!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Allen, PK is just kidding around.

But the issue of stupidity and fraud goes beyond this Bozo The Clown particle. All of quantum mechanics is a fraud because the universe is not composed of discrete particles. Such an assumption (as Hypothesized by the Mathemagicians) is impossible.

One would naturally ask: Why is it impossible? How can an idiot with the name of "fatfist" know all there is to know about the universe?

A: This is not an issue of knowing. Only Priests "know" all there is to know.

This is an issue of critical thinking and reason. It is impossible for any 2 discrete (disconnected) particles to attract each other. Atoms cannot possibly attract each other if there wasn't some sort of medium connecting them. Gravitation would not be possible as these alleged particles would be floating randomly.

The only rational conclusion is that all matter is interconnected. And this interconnectivity of atoms can rationally explain all natural phenomena, including light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc....without the use of magical spirits.

Nature has no magic and no spirits. Nature only has objects. And since they perpetually attract each other, they are necessarily interconnected.

• PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Critical Thinking Attribute of God.

Religion Attribute of Satan.

Don't question my God allen.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

• Allen 4 years ago

Don't God my attribute, PK!

BTW, I got that you were joking. My post wasn't clear on that...

Religiously yours-

Mr. G.P. Higgs

• Question Man 4 years ago

So tell me straight: does a forest exist? Is it only the trees which exist (objects)? Or do the trees aggregate into a forest's existence? Sometimes I can imagine a forest's shape; sometimes I imagine I'm surrounded only by tree objects! Where's the fu**ing forest then?!

Does a goddam bloody forest exists or not?

:D

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

QM,

First of all, calm down.....cussing and anger won’t get you anywhere. I didn’t rape your mother, ok? Although I am known to fancy a MILF once in a while.....I am not quite sure yet that your mother qualifies as one.

Having said that, let’s proceed to your intellectual question:

“does a forest exist?”

You have no right to ever use the word ‘exist’ in a sentence unless you can define it right here and RIGHT NOW! If you can’t, then please say so and I will define it for you. I am also known to help people here.

Furthermore, before you can even begin to define this word, you need to tell the audience whether OBJECTS or CONCEPTS can qualify for existence. And to do that, you must provide definitions for these 2 terms.

Ultimately, either "objects" or "concepts" can exist, not both, as these words resolve to different categories. If you claim that both can exist, then there would only be one category to fit all words. Obviously this isn’t the case. So your response to this pertinent question has to make sense.

Q1: Define OBJECT.

Q2: Define CONCEPT.

Q3: Do OBJECTS or CONCEPTS qualify for existence?

Q4: What do you mean by “exist?” ....please define.

• Question Man 4 years ago

Foooey! You flippin' MILF-lover, just give it to me straight. Yes or no.

Don't make me come down there.

• Question Man 4 years ago

OK, well if I'm inside a forest shaggin' yo momma it doesn't really have a shape, only trees do. Although it's a blur when I'm bouncing her up and down.

If I'm flying yo momma's chopper she lent me over the forest, it has a shape kinda. It's a bit all over the place.

Can't have both shape and none, so go lick a butthole.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Fiesta (aka Question Man), please use your YouTube name “Fiesta” from now on. No need to come here with a mask on to hide who you are. Unlike Stefan Mollyneux, you have no reputation to protect.

“well if I'm inside a forest .... it doesn't really have a shape,”

It??

The “IT” that you are inside in, is obviously an object. You cannot be inside concepts. It is irrelevant whether you made subjective observations with your sensory system. Reality is not dependent on observers and their opinions. Only Religionists and Mathematicians value their heart-felt opinions enough to decree them as “absolute truths”. I mean, just look....they discovered God this week.

“Can't have both shape and none”

For sure. And there is no middle-ground either. An object, like you, cannot be inside a concept. When you are “in” something, it is an object by definition. Every single word that any human or alien can utter either resolves to an object or a concept. There is no other option.

An object is that which has shape.

A concept is a relation between two or more objects.

So, you previously asked a question with the word “exist” in it. I asked you to define it or concede that you can’t. You did neither. You don’t like to answer any question because you are scared. But in order to have an intellectual discussion (like you AGREED to in youtube) you must answer the questions posed to you.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Fiesta,

1) Can objects or concepts be said to exist.

2) Please define exist, since you used it in a sentence.

This is not a place where you can troll or play childish games. Answer the questions.

• Question Man 4 years ago

1) Objects (like yo momma)

2) An object we measure or sense? (Dunno.)

Surely I can "be in" an area or inside the Universe?! Do those exist? But anyway my main point was, surely the forest can't go from shape to no shape (or be both at once). Isn't that some kind of contradiction?

Don't make me pull more yo momma jokes. I am VERY good at them.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Fiesta,

1) Only objects can be said to exist. Makes sense, fiesta.

2) Now you say that existence circumscribes “An object we measure or sense? (Dunno.)”. And you seem like you are not really sure about this. And the reason you are not sure is because objects exist on their own. They don’t need an observer to sense or measure them, and as soon as he stops sensing them and puts away his measuring tape, they start to vanish into the void. Obviously this is not the case.

Exist is a concept which describes physical presence. It is objects that are physical. What is physically present is what is said to be real or exist because it is located somewhere, has location.

So “exist” is a concept which describes that which is an object with location.

“Surely I can "be in" an area or inside the Universe?! Do those exist?”

What, the “area”? This area or region is not an object, it’s a concept. It’s a relation we identify by using a set of surrounding objects, or with even a set of interrelated abstract concepts, like number lines. An area cannot be said to exist...makes no sense. You can cut an object in pieces and be inside a piece.....which exists as an object.

“surely the forest can't go from shape to no shape (or be both at once). “

Of course it can’t.

“Isn't that some kind of contradiction?”

What is the contradiction? Take the forest, cut it in half by ripping out all the trees and reassemble as many forests from that as you want. An object is not that which is made up of other objects. This is rhetoric.

• Allen (AKA hartforest) 4 years ago

Poor Padre Fiesta either won't or can't define the very term he wags in our faces... like we're his choirboys at nap-time!

I warned him. Even ol' Aristotle understood that existential terms (ex: "is") are used in various ways depending on the category or topos (topic = "place"). The key was to define *how* it was being used and to *what* it referred. What's the perspective? Not much has changed in the need for definitions, it still remains key, although, not the key to the rectory...

OK. Now we can have it out without my comments being "spammed":

• Allen 4 years ago

Fiesta-

You said on YT:

"I submit that it is true that ‘the’ shape ‘is’ on the object because (dependence) we can prove that ‘it’ ‘is’ there (empirically)."

How can anything, or even a "property" be *on* something unshaped?

• Allen 4 years ago

@Fatfist

Well, from his last comments to me on YT, it looks like Padre No Comprende Existo walked away from what could have been at least an entertaining sermon of fire and brimstone. That's OK, I like the taste of straight tequila in glass just fine, all alone or with company...

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Allen,

“Even ol' Aristotle understood that existential terms (ex: "is") are used in various ways depending on the category or topos (topic = "place"). The key was to define *how* it was being used and to *what* it referred. What's the perspective? “

Yes, you’ve hit the nail on the head with that statement. Thank you so much for raising this issue.

And I did want to explain this further to fiesta,....and tons of other details which he never heard before....but he stated on Stefan Mollyneux’s absolute truth youtube video that this discussion is a waste of his time. Go figure!

Anyway, words are what they are because man invented them to represent or label objects and concepts. Now, the problem arises when people don’t understand the difference between SYNTACTICAL grammar and CONTEXTUAL grammar in human languages. Syntactical grammar....just like the syntax in programming languages, like Java or C++, is a prescription or rule for syntactical correctness in statement representation only. As for programming languages, the buck stops there.....syntax dictates runtime execution (i.e. CONTEXT) of statements.

But this is NOT the case for human languages. Noooooo sir Billy Bob....no friggin’ way!

All human languages are subject to the second stage of grammar we call CONTEXTUAL GRAMMAR. This is where the meaning of the syntax is derived from. Unfortunately, most people are not educated in grammar and don’t understand this distinction. So they take the syntax of a sentence and subject it to some out-of-context interpretation, even though the author explicitly stated the proper context. And this is where the STRAWMAN attacks begin, as fiesta attempted to do with the definition of OBJECT, CONCEPT and EXIST. Nobody was blind to this. He was called out on this misrepresentation several times, but chose to take the oath of guilty silence on the issue.

Now fiesta can go argue somewhere else on the Internet about these definitions. He can argue his strawmen with someone who is not well versed in objects, concepts and grammar. I guarantee you he will always win these arguments. And I encourage him to do so because he needs to lift up his spirits after discovering fatfist. This discussion with me right here stopped fiesta dead in his tracks. He cannot show a single contradiction here.

But hey, at least fiesta now admitted that only OBJECTS can possibly exist. So now that he got educated, he dropped his Religion that “concepts such as truth and what not” can exist. If fiesta has a Religion to protect, then this is a very dangerous place for him to come and flaunt his strawmen. But if he has genuine intentions, I look forward to any discussion with him.

• Allen 4 years ago

@Fatfist

"Anyway, words are what they are because man invented them to represent or label objects and concepts."

One really funny thing that struck me about St. Stefan's video is that he castigates you for stating something along the lines that "man invented truth."

He does so by equating "invent" with a sort of intentional arbitrariness, as if someone awoke one day and said "Truth! Yep, by golly! I'm a-gonna make me a conceptual system of validation!"

This, of course, is a straw-man, but then he goes on to say that truth wasn't invented, but rightly discovered, by humans, all while he's seemingly unaware of the origins of the f***king term he derides:

Invent= from Latin "invenio"= (you guessed it) "come upon, meet with, find, discover."

Our Randian Redux is so busy being the binary "Objectivist" he doesn't even know the joke is on him. I know his flock wouldn't laugh...

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Allen,

Here is Stefan Molleneux’s video on absolute truth for those who are wondering:

OMG....Stefan makes so many contradictions in the video that it’s easy to lose count.

One very funny one is at the 1:00 mark where he compares the article’s title to: “let’s head North so I can prove to you that there is no such thing as North”.

I can’t believe that there are educated people on this planet who don’t understand that the system of Cardinal Direction was invented by Adam & Eve (i.e. human apes).....and not by their God (i.e. Jesus, Allah, Singularity, Big Bang, etc).

Of course there is no North in reality. North is a Cardinal Direction AGREED upon by humans. There is no up, down, left or right in the universe. These are convenient conventions we agree upon.....not absolutes.

• El Dude 4 years ago

Did you get to do a live debate with Stefan Molyneux? I think that'd make a great show.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Dude,

“Did you get to do a live debate with Stefan Molyneux?”

Actually, I offered to do a lot better than that. You see, I live 10 min away from this Internet celebrity. So I wanted to discuss his video face-to-face. I challenged him in the comments section of his youtube channel to a debate. He wanted to do one via skype and with a moderator. I told him that this was not an option for me. The only debates I will ever do are without the censorship of moderators. I don’t want anybody to interrupt when I have a noose tied around his neck. I will either do a face-to-face debate with NO interruptions from anyone, and videotaped plus posted on youtube....or an on-line back & forth debate either in my hubs or in his Freedomain forums.

Stefan initially agreed on face-to-face debate, but then backed out. He refused these options offered to him because there is no exit route for him when I ask the tough questions and demand coherent answers. There will be nobody to stop the debate and bail him out.

Stefan Molleneux is an Internet and public-speaking persona. He has established a NAME BRAND status for himself, similar to Tony Robbins. He knows how to psychologically manipulate the crowd and get expected reactions out of them. Just watch of few of those videos on his channel and you’d swear they were Religious rallies.

It would be very damaging for Stefan when a nobody, like fatfist, educates him on the Philosophical history of the “absolute”. And what could Stefan possibly say when asked by fatfist:

“Ummm....Stefan....no Philosopher in the past 2500 years has been able to show a single absolute. In fact, Bertrand Russell almost went mad, while Turing, Cantor, Godel, Boltzmann and others committed suicide after relentlessly searching for absolutes. So, what makes you think that you have a single absolute to offer humanity?”

That is a very dangerous question requiring a censorer....oops, I mean, a MODERATOR close by!

• Allen 4 years ago

Wow. I had no idea you'd gone to those lengths to establish a dialog with him. He really is a chicken-shit. You might find this funny.

http://mises.org/preview/6101/The-Molyneux-Problem

It's a critique of St. Stefan's ethical theory. The comments are comedy-gold, but I found it telling that his flock has so far given him 68 thumbs-up just for asking where he could submit a rebuttal on the Mises site!!! Good God, those freaks are fanatical!

Here is Molly's "rebuttal."

What struck me right off the bat is that Stef tries to claim that Gordon begins by using "adjectives ("preposterous," "miserable" describing Molly's arguments) rather than arguments. Yet, in his shoddy critique of your hub he began by calling it "bad philosophy." What a hypocrite.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Thanks for those links, Allen. It shows that Stefan has no substance in his arguments. He is always accusing people of AdHom's, Poisoning the Well, and other nonsense. He heard of these logical fallacies, but like almost 99% of the folks on the Internet, he doesn't know what they mean.

An Ad Hominem is NOT when somebody says that: "you are an idiot".

An Ad Hominem is when somebody says that: "you are an idiot, therefore it follows that my argument is the correct one"

All logical fallacies are of the form: premise, conclusion.

Pastor Stefan still needs to learn the basics.

• Allen 4 years ago

""you are an idiot, therefore it follows that my argument is the correct one""

Fatfist is mentally/emotionally damaged by "absolutist" parents, therefore it follows that is hub is a product of bad nurturing.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Ha ha ha!! I didn't even notice that. I thought you were joking and checked the end of the video. Wow, this guy is something else.

He needs to get a serious refund on his mind-reading lessons.

Well, making comments like that is actually very nurturing for his soul. It's better than debating me face-to-face with no interruptions from anyone.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Fiesta and Mol. are both knotheads! Their mother's must have rocked them in their cradles (using big rocks)!

• The roaring lion 4 years ago

Ff,

when u talk of binary, ability to conceptualise only nothing verses something, it remind me of my wonder of what differentiate these electrons, positrons, bosons, higgs, matter, antimatter, dark matter etc of theirs. Worst is when they term them as 'wavicles'. If an higg and a photon are both waves, how can there be two different undulations. I mean go to the pond and observe keenly and lo! A ripple is a ripple! Tell them to illustrate a ripple of an higg to differentiate it from that of an electron. If it is the differential frequencies, consider varying the debrongile wavelenght of an electron by varying its mass and varying that of a proton by varying its velocity so that both the wavelenght of a proton and that of an electron becomes the same. What the hell will be the difference? What the f*ck is this beast they call mass?

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

DeBroglie waves at you!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Lion,

“what differentiate these electrons, positrons, bosons, higgs, matter, antimatter, dark matter etc of theirs.”

It’s very simple. The mathematicians claim to be doing observations....but they are actually NOT directly observing what they claim. They are observing phenomena (a movie), and EXTAPOLATING (speculating) an alleged entity which is supposedly performing these phenomena. For example, under an electron microscope, they see some fuzzy moving lines in their successive images. Now they extrapolate that they saw God....ooops...I mean, an electron. Not a single mathematician can illustrate an atom, electron, dark matter, energy, black hole, boson, higgs, photon, warped space, dilated time, etc.

Now consider the EXACT SAME scenario where the theist claims that God exists because they have observed the wonder of the world around us, the order, the creation of the expanding universe, etc.....then the atheist mathematician will tell them: “You have NOT observed God! Where is your God? Show him to us!”

Yes, Mr. Mathemagician....please show us a wave, boson, antimatter, black hole, electron, time, energy, etc. But they can’t do this because their version of the scientific method is exactly the same as what they do in Religion....subjectively extrapolate what is reality.

When you corner them on this issue, they turn the other cheek and say: “Well, we don’t know anything about the universe. We don’t really know what a boson, higgs, black hole, energy, photon, etc, actually is......but we know they exit – we proved it! Humans have limited understanding. Science always changes. New theories may supersede black holes and bosons in the future.”

So let me get this straight....these clowns just PROVED that all these entities were observed to exist, but they can’t even illustrate them or know what they are? And to make their case worse.....they may come out with new theories in the future which prove these alleged entities as bunk? And they have the balls to criticize theists?

There is no surprise that mathematics and observations/extrapolations have more to do with Religion than science.

“What the f*ck is this beast they call mass?”

Mass is a concept which is synonymous with “weight”. It is measured the same and has the same units (kg). You necessarily need to relate and compare 2 objects to convey mass/weight. One is the test object and the other is the kg standard which is in France under lock and key so nobody will steal “mass” from it and throw off their measurements.

Humans invented mass. Just like they invented love. A lone object in the universe has no mass or love.....it only has SHAPE.

But the cat is out if the bag. A ghost came and stole some micrograms from their cherished kg mass. Now the mathematicians are scrambling to figure out what new word to invent to patch up their contradictions. Dark matter is already invented. How about “Ghost Matter”, which steals mass?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/world/europe/13k...

Everything in math physics is founded on contradictions because they don’t follow the scientific method.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

I find motion most tricky still.

An object doesn't "have" motion like it "has" shape, but surely humans didn't invent the concept of motion either. Before humans came about, hopefully the Moon was still moving around.

So there are things that objects "do" (verb), and what I find tricky is that "verbs" don't exist, they just... are verbs! So, what "is" "it" that objects DO when humans don't observe them, if they indeed move?!

Still getting my head around that. I like to do the gedanken: imagine one lone object in all the universe. Is it moving? How would we know?! We need a comparison object! OK, so we understand that motion requires two or more objects. It's what multiple objects do or "have done" upon reasoning in retrospect!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

ScienceOfLife,

“An object doesn't "have" motion like it "has" shape”

That’s because shape is intrinsic to the object. This is why we can call it a property....and a static one. There is no other intrinsic property that an object can have. All other said properties are actually extrinsic, in that they necessarily depend on another object in order to be conceptualized and related. This is easily reasoned in the scenario of a universe consisting of only 3 objects which are all moving wrt each other. Suppose God makes 2 of the objects disappear. Does the 3 rd lonely object still move? What could the word “motion” possibly mean in this context? It is impossible for this object to be moving. Now God makes the other 2 objects reappear, and guess what.....that 3 rd object is suddenly moving again.

Shape is the only property that an object can have without any other objects or observers being present.

Take an object and cut it into a million pieces, like FIESTA says....Fiesta AGREES that each piece has shape and only shape....no other intrinsic property (like in the forest example he gave which backfired on him). You can alter an object any way you like. But in the end, whatever is left over has shape. An object cannot merge or blend with the void. That’s what the concept of shape is about.

It is these simple notions which instantly destroy the Religions of Relativity, Quantum and String Theory. And this is why soooooo many people are pissed!!

“but surely humans didn't invent the concept of motion either”

No, it is merely a description of a phenomenon (i.e. dynamic event). This “fluidity” of motion is just an illusion to us because we have memory. We have memorized the previous locations of an object and recorded a movie in our brains. Only sentient beings can do this. As far as the rest of nature is concerned, there is no motion....there is only static location. An object has location...it is either here or there. It is our memory of successive locations which gives us the illusion of the fluidity of motion. A lonely object can never have motion or mass or color or anything else ....except shape. Every single word we can conceive is always a relation between 2 nouns. And every single word ultimately “resolves” to an object or a concept.

“what I find tricky is that "verbs" don't exist, they just... are verbs!”

More so, they are strictly concepts. All concepts are relations between objects. Motion is a relation between objects; specifically, their locations. Objects precede concepts in that all concepts are necessarily predicated on objects. Only objects exist. Relations don’t exist. Relations establish or identify certain properties, aspects or descriptions about objects. Relations come in different flavors. They can be static or dynamic....intrinsic or extrinsic.....innate or artificial. Shape is the only intrinsic, static and innate relation that can possibly be conceptualized or identified. A lonely object is separated at its border by space. No observer is required to invent such a relation because it is not artificial. We can only come along and identify this relation and just give it a simple name: shape.

“So, what "is" "it" that objects DO when humans don't observe them, if they indeed move?”

Perpetually change locations due to the attraction we call gravitation. Nature has no memory or video recording devices. You cannot travel back in time like Pastor Hawking likes you to believe.

“OK, so we understand that motion requires two or more objects. It's what multiple objects do or "have done" upon reasoning in retrospect!”

Yes, even existence is a concept....a relation. What exists is what has physical presence.....’it’ has to be located somewhere (it is irrelevant where). Without observers being present to record movies, objects only exist in physical locality wrt each other. At any frame in a conceptual movie, objects have location.

Suppose the universe only has 2 objects. God holds both of them in place so none can move. Then God throws only the second object and He vanishes. Does the first object have motion....does it move? Of course it does! Its location changes wrt the other object. In fact, if an observer, like a RELATIVIST (Einstein’s disciple) were present, this idiot could NOT tell which object is moving and which is still...nomatter what fancy instruments, lasers, mirrors, calculators or math he has at his disposal.

See how clueless Relativists are? See how powerless Math is to tell you anything about reality? LOL!

Relativity has nothing to do with Physics. Relativity is a religion. Physics cannot be attacked or contradicted. Religions are easily contradicted. This is why people run away from the argument when you ask them the EASY questions, which are actually TOUGH for them :-)

• Allen 4 years ago

Oh, and how Fiesta's smugness gets him! This morning he's telling me that "object=that which has shape" is statement of truth, relative to a system of logic. I actually agreed with him...

But, not totally. Why? Because while it **may** be the case that "object = that which has shape" is a result of a logical process, a logical truth, it isn't **necessary** that this is the case. He cannot seem to distinguish between "may" and "necessary."

In addition, Padre Fiesta seems clueless when it comes to realizing *all* systems of logic are ultimately based in our perceptions of objects. Hence, he keeps ducking my question regarding his claim that other properties (his "mass", "velocity") can be **on** "something" with no shape!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Allen,

“"object=that which has shape" is statement of truth, relative to a system of logic. I actually agreed with him...”

Ha ha, his obfuscated sophistry got you pretty good. It’s ok, an honest mistake. Everybody makes this same mistake (I explain later below).

Actually, I found out from others that fiesta is a YouTube troll. That is his playground with all his strawmen sophistry. This is why he is SCARED to come here and engage me on any issue. Fiesta is known to play on both sides of the fence. When he loses his argument, he will side with the Religionists and tell you that “absolute truth, morals, love, spirits, souls, etc. do indeed exist” just so he can make up another strawman to WIN over you. Ha ha...these are really old tactics....the same that his Priest Stefan Molyneux does. Just look at Stefan’s videos where he teaches people how to win every argument, no matter how ridiculous your position is. Just google “how to win every argument” and you’ll see all the articles out there teaching you how to argue like the Greek Sophists used to do. Fiesta uses these old sophistry strawmen techniques and actually does WIN every single argument he has........except here!!

But really, Fiesta has no arguments to contradict the Physics definition of object.

In fact, I challenge FIESTA to \$10,000 in Paypal cash if he can come here and refute this article. I promise to pay him \$10,000 and remove this article if he can contradict it. If he can’t....no problem....he just “proved” himself to be an idiot (do we need proof for this? LOL) and he doesn’t have to pay me anything. I am on the record.

This is the same challenge I gave to Fiesta’s Priest, Stefan Molyneux who ran away in hiding ever since. Fiesta has done the same.

“Because while it **may** be the case that "object = that which has shape" is a result of a logical process, a logical truth, it isn't **necessary** that this is the case.”

Allen, you fell victim to the oldest trick in the book: TRUTH & LOGIC.

Don’t believe me? Just go over to Matt Slick’s site and see all his logical arguments which are 100% proven. There is not a single person on this planet who has DISPROVEN Slick’s proof of God.....not one!!!!

And there will never be.

Why?

Because once you AGREE on the pre-DEFINED rules of logic and truth, then you have shot yourself in the face! You have agreed to follow the rules of a human-invented system of sophistry which can prove anything under the sun. Logic can be used to prove that Fiesta is actually your mother.

Truth is a word invented by Religionists over 2500 years ago. It was squashed by the Greeks (the Sophists in FACT) who showed it to be none other than an OPINION. The Greek Sophists abandoned science, philosophy, mathematics and ethics. What they taught was the subtle art of PERSUASION.....how to WIN every argument. A Sophist was a person who could argue eloquently – and could prove any position whether that position was correct or incorrect. This was called: LOGIC & TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This stuff is old news, but unfortunately most people have not studied the roots of logic and truth and how philosophers have struggled to make truth into a God-like word which allows them to win every argument, even to this day. And even to this day, the word TRUTH remains undefined by any human being. A philosopher will admit in your face that nobody knows what truth is.....but then instantly argue that all his arguments are TRUE. I am speechless that people in this day and age fall for this oldest trick in the book.

I am practically the only person who has given an unambiguous and rational definition to this word. Just see it in my article on Absolute Truth. If anybody else on this planet has defined this word objectively, then I will be in TOTAL SHOCK when somebody posts it here....TOTAL SHOCK!!!!!

Why?

Because the word truth is impossible to define OBJECTIVELY, that is, in an OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT manner. Truth necessarily requires an observer. Truth is “THE” observer’s OPINION...we’re done!! Without an observer.....there is NO truth.....period!!!

The only rational definition of TRUTH resolves to a SUBJECTIVE concept, which is predicated on OPINION. It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue otherwise. And this is why my neck of the woods is extremely dangerous for Fiesta to play in. There are no games or strawmen here....just critical thinking and analysis (out of Fiesta’s league).

That “object has shape” has nothing to do with TRUTHS, PROOFS, LIES, OPINIONS, ABSOLUTES, OBSERVERS, EXPERIMENTS, BELIEF, FAITH, KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, HOPE, TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, AUTHORITY, POPULARITY, etc...

Objects had shape before Fiesta and Pastor’s Molyneux’s God (i.e. the Big Bang Singularity) created Adam & Eve so these two apes can be born and give their opinion on the issue. Shape has no dependency on observer’s and any conceptual garbage or sophistry they invent. A lonely object in the universe only has one....AND ONLY ONE INTRISIC, STATIC AND INNATE PROPERTY: shape!

A lonely object in the universe is necessarily separated from its background of space. It cannot lose its form and blend with space and vanish. No truth or observers required for this!!

Objects have NO truth, whether absolute, transient, relative, universal, .....or any flavor of truth. Truth is not a property of objects. Truth is the opinion of an individual.....nothing more!

TRUTH is a concept with an inherent fallacy.....THE FALLACY OF REIFICATION. And this is why people are perpetually confused about ‘it’. Truth is not a noun.....not an ‘it’. There is NO truth to be ‘found’ out there in the universe.

TRUTH is a VERB! Truth is an ACTION that an observer must perform in order to validate a statement. Truth is what suits the individual’s biased interests. Ergo, the individual performs a subjective task to “prove” (i.e. subjectively validate) that their interest is the correct “true” one.

And this is why Aristotle took it upon himself to formalize the concept of truth by encapsulating it within a set of rules of engagement: axioms. He called this system Classical Logic. Anything claimed as ‘truth’ outside the realm of THIS context, is nothing but self-serving opinion.

Within the Bible (axiomatic system of logic), he who sins goes to Hell. This is TRUE wrt the Bible. In fact, you cannot form any LOGICAL argument about any statement in the Bible unless you first AGREE to the rules of its system.

Within Relativity’s axiomatic rules of logic, time stretches, and this is TRUE wrt Relativity.....irrespective whether time is an artificial dynamic concept which has nothing to do with reality. This means that ‘truth’ & ‘proof’ are subjective notions which are completely DIVORCED from reality. Ultimately, nature pisses on the opinions (i.e. TRUTHS) of human apes.

If a fellow human ape managed to convince you of a TRUTH, then he is a very good con artist.....he has pulled the wool over your eyes!

Allen, you gotta let go of this nonsense humans call “truth” and embrace reality. There is no truth of any sort. I know it’s hard for all this to sink in because we have all been brainwashed with this contradictory concept since childhood.

“he keeps ducking my question regarding his claim that other properties (his "mass", "velocity") can be **on** "something" with no shape!”

Mass, velocity, color, temperature, inertia, etc... are all relations which necessarily invoke another test object which is used as a REFERENCE. A lonely object only has shape.....nothing else. That’s why Fiesta keeps ducking your question.

Fiesta’s tricks are extremely old. Don’t let him fool you. He has no arguments....just sophistry (LOGIC & TRUTH). He is nothing more than a Christian Apologist, like William Lane Craig and Matt Slick....my hat’s off to these two as they can convince anybody that pigs fly!!

• Allen 4 years ago

I'm not certain either of you are getting what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm not clear in writing it out.

I have no big beef with logic and it's truths, only the ridiculous belief in it's magic powers. It's a useful tool and I'm fairly indifferent to it, as I am to the hammers hanging out in the shop.

One **can and may** indeed reach the conclusion that "objects= that which have shape" through a logical process (which, as you say, is a verb, as is "knowledge," "perception," "thought" etc.). I see no real problem with this.

But, my point to Fiesta:

Who cares? It's still a statement of opinion even if it **coincidentally** accurate in its terms. Whoopee! It doesn't mean that the logical truth is *necessary* in, or for, reality. Reality never depends upon logic and truth.

This is where Father Fiesta gets hung up. He takes this coincidence as a "proof" of a "truth," even while the 'production' of "object = that which has shape" into words may come from completely different perspectives! It's like saying we arrived in Dallas, you from Santa Fe; me from Biloxi, by the same route, simply because we are both now in Dallas!

I think you may have been lead by my post into thinking that I accepted "truth" as a thing or even a criteria for reality. That's never been the case. I simply see it as a tool, but **nowhere** have I maintained that 'truth' has anything to do with reality...only invented logical systems.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Allen,

“One **can and may** indeed reach the conclusion that "objects= that which have shape" through a logical process (which, as you say, is a verb, as is "knowledge," "perception," "thought" etc.). I see no real problem with this.”

Actually, it’s simpler than that. The universe is embodied by either something or nothing. There is no other option or middle ground besides something and nothing. And this is how we easily reason that objects have shape. And no observers are required to establish a something vs nothing relation. There is no system of classical logic, intuitionist logic, fuzzy logic, quantum logic or any other human-invented system of logical rules than can apply here. Reality is outside the context of logical systems. Reality can only be rationalized and critically reasoned.....not axiomatically (i.e. rule-based) decreed as “truth”, like the proponents of “truth” are attempting to do.

But I am willing to give these “truthers” out there the benefit of the doubt. I want them to come here and explain to the audience what benchmark standard they use to evaluate truth. Their concept of truth cannot be declared “true” or “correct” unless it meets the specifications of some superseding standard benchmark. And since truth cannot be used to benchmark truth, I want them to tell the audience WHAT this standard is which truth is based on.

And after they do that, I want them to explain to the audience what is the standard on which THAT standard was based on.....etc....etc...etc.....

I mean, this should be easy. The proponents of TRUTH should be able to objectively answer these reasonable questions, otherwise they need to abandon their Religion of Truth because it is rooted in circular contradictions.

• Allen 4 years ago

Well, not only is Fiesta a sophist, he's now shown himself to be an outright liar. 'Nuff said. Anything in the name of Religion, eh?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

OMG, are you still at it with him? Youtube is this guy's domain, where comments become hidden and obfuscated tools to be used in the sophist's advantage. You gotta get this little chicken to come and continue his argument in here. If he has any valid points or refutations, he can kill this hub in an instant so I can remove it....

Fiesta actually has FAITH in the Religion of Math Fyzzics. He believes in creation, black holes, dark matter, warped space, dilated time, 0D particles, black magic, etc.

So it's no wonder he will fight tooth & nail against the reality of objects. Fiesta wants to do physics with concepts/relations....he wants to reify them into objects and bounce them over his head.

Hey Fiesta.....are you scared to come back here??

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

What an intellectual coward this guy is.

• Allen 4 years ago

Yeah, I was still at it with him, longer than any internet debate in which I've participated. I was curious how long he'd go given his ridiculous assertions and constant misrepresentation.

I didn't figure he'd actually pull a stunt like he did, though. The fact that he has to resort to lying, by rearranging my verbiage so it fits his agenda, shows what this huckster will do to protect his belief system.

He'll never come here, that's for certain.

• Nick 4 years ago

Hello, in a response to Questionman about whether a forest should be considered an object or not you said, "What is the contradiction? Take the forest, cut it in half by ripping out all the trees and reassemble as many forests from that as you want. An object is not that which is made up of other objects. This is rhetoric."

My question is, should the trees be considered an object? When you break it down, aren't we left with nothing but atoms?

Btw, I enjoy your hubs. I've used some of the info to challenge more than a few people including my college chemistry teacher( a Ph.D). Good stuff.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Nick,

“My question is, should the trees be considered an object? When you break it down, aren't we left with nothing but atoms?”

Physics is the study of objects which exist. These are the nouns (actors) of our Hypotheses and Theories.

The tree is an object because it has shape, not because it is made of other objects. An object is not that which is made up of parts. So, as physicists, we need to decide whether we are going to do physics at the tree-level or the atom-level. Either the tree or one of its atoms or molecules will be used as actors in our theory...for example: “why did the skier die when going downhill in a forest?” Do we need to worry about atoms or molecules to rationally explain the answer to this question? Obviously not. Even though there may not be any evidence of a skier collision on the tree, it doesn’t mean that the skier didn’t hit the tree. The tree will be our hypothesized object that contributed to the death of the skier. Our theory will rationally explain how this event happened and why the skier died.

It is up to the theorist to propose which object he will use to rationally explain his theory. Will it be a tree or an atom? Different theories have different contexts.

Thanks for your kinds words, Nick.

• Andre' Jacobs 4 years ago

I think this is where I will have to start. With your Holy Grail.

You define an object as "that which has shape." Like I have said before, why such an arbitrary property? Could you explain why you chose 'shape' to define an object with?

You said: "All objects have shape, whether they are abstract objects whose shape is dependent on an observer’s conception, or real objects whose shape is a standalone property and observer-independent."

What is an 'abstract object'? If you could tell me that, then maybe I would understand what a real object is.

You said: "The invisible objects which mediate the phenomena we call light, gravity and magnetism can certainly be hypothesized. "

What are you talking about here? Invisible objects that mediate light?

"Matterless motion is impossible." Yes, so that should lead you to ask how light can travel through space, which, according to you, consists of nothing. Motion does not only need matter, but also a medium.

"Otherwise, you are talking about the motion of nothing, which implies that “nothing” is performing actions which mediate phenomena. This is clearly impossible."

Yes, so either 'nothing' doesn't exist, or motion can indeed be mediated by 'nothing'. Light moving through space being an example.

"The Universe can only be described as the relation of something (matter) to nothing (space)."

Seriously? Does that make any sense to you?

"There is no other option besides something vs nothing."

Yes, there is. There is no such 'thing' as 'nothing'.

" The nouns of grammar like “love” and “bravery” are not objects. They have no shape/form. They cannot possibly have a surface or physical presence. Thus, they cannot possibly be real and exist in reality."

And yet they do exist in reality. They are not objects, but no-one ever said they were.

On the one side you theorize that light and gravity must have some kind of invisible, undetectable object that mediates it, but on the other hand you deny the existence of something that clearly does exist. Are you sane?

" Such nouns of grammar are concepts. All concepts are relations which are necessarily predicated on existing objects."

Can you point to the object that could have been the originator of 'love' or 'justice'?

"There is no other option besides something (object) vs nothing (concept)."

How can a concept exist and not exist at the same time?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

I don’t want our exchange to get messy, disorganized and hard to follow. So I will only address one or two questions at a time until they get resolved. Then I will address your other questions in succession.

“shape....why such an arbitrary property?”

By saying that an object has shape, we mean it has a delineation or demarcation which distinguishes it from nothing. An object is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. This identifying distinction is the only ‘intrinsic’ property a lone object in the Universe has. That distinction and property is SHAPE. There are NO other properties a lone object can possible have. Any other property would require a second object to establish a comparative relation, and thus it would be an ‘EXTRINSIC’ property (EXTERNAL to the object in question).

Shape is a very particular attribute that refers to the inability of matter to interface with space. Another name for it is SPATIAL SEPARATION.

So...Andre....we begin at the roots/primacy/identity or whatever you wish to call it in order to determine WHAT an object is. This means that we critically analyse one, and only ONE object without introducing any others, including an observer. This is how our definition will BECOME OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT. So please....do NOT introduce an observer again in the context of this article and my definition of object/shape. I have been more than clear on this issue.

Therefore, the ONLY property that a lone distinct discrete standalone object can ever have is an intrinsic one: SHAPE.

1) An INTRINSIC property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context.

2) An EXTRINSIC property is a property that depends on a thing's pre-established relationship with other things.

NOTE: Shape is distinct from appearance, aspect, look, or likeness in that it is intrinsic. The other words denote "shape" from an observer’s perspective. This is NOT my context, ok? Shape in MY context has nothing to do with observers. The Moon has refused to blend with space even before life arose on Earth. For that matter, a fish doesn’t blend with the waters that surround it either, but each of its atoms has space as its background. A particular set of atoms is bound by the skin of the fish, which in turn is contained within the sea, which is constrained by the Earth, which is enveloped in air, but individually and collectively, these entities are surrounded by space. Without this insulator we call space, the Universe would be a continuous, infinite block of matter. Shape denotes the property used to identify a category of ‘something’– an object!

Andre, If you don’t like SHAPE, then I am sorry, but nobody cares. Either refute it, provide your own INTRINSIC property for the word ‘object’, accept it, or ignore it and go about your merry life. To be fair, these are your options....am I correct? Nobody is forcing you to accept anything.

“What is an 'abstract object'?”

An object which, when we attempt to resolve its existence, we determine that it does not exist. But it is nonetheless an object. Objecthood is distinct from ‘existence’. They are NOT synonyms and not the same concepts.

Example of objects which don’t exist: square, cube, Aristotle, Napoleon, Superman, Argentinosaurus huinculensis, 2015 Corvette.

How can they possibly be objects and not exist? Because they have shape. We can illustrate these objects on paper or make a statue out of them. There is no question that these are syntactical nouns which represent entities. Again, existence is a completely separate concept from objecthood. Let’s not mix them up or confuse them.

Andre...please do not talk about existence or its definition in our discussions as this is a separate matter we can discuss only AFTER we resolve what an object actually is. Thank you!

• Andre' Jacobs 4 years ago

I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say. But I don't think 'shape' is the right concept. I think I know why you are using it, but I don't think you should. Let's start with how you normally use 'shape'.

Wikipedia: The shape (Old English: gesceap, created thing) of an object located in some space is a geometrical description of the part of that space occupied by the object, as determined by its external boundary – abstracting from location and orientation in space, size, and other properties such as colour, content, and material composition.

Online dictionary: a. The characteristic surface configuration of a thing; an outline or contour. See Synonyms at form.

b. Something distinguished from its surroundings by its outline.

Dictionary.com: the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure.

Oxford dictionary: 1-the external form, contours, or outline of someone or something:she liked the shape of his nose

2-a geometric figure such as a square, triangle, or rectangle.

That which you are refering to gives something shape, but it isn't shape.

"SPATIAL SEPARATION." is the same as saying 'shape'. That doesn't help much either.

I am going to have to think about what to call it though .....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

"b. Something distinguished from its surroundings by its outline."

There you go! And we are not concerned what its outline looks like ....whether circular, square, etc. This is not the issue.

This is what I've been telling you all along. Shape distinguishes the referent from its surroundings. This is the issue. It is the inability for the entity to lose its border/outline and morph into its surroundings and disappear. Again, your dictionary search has revealed that ‘shape’ is a quality/property/attribute that is observer-independent.

Please re-read my previous comment to you and you will understand. Obviously we are not using ‘shape’ in the subjective context of observer-based verification: appearance, aspect, look, likeness, etc. which is a verification of WHAT the shape of an object is i.e. circular, triangular, etc. This is irrelevant. The only question we ask is: Does the referent resolve to having shape? Yes or No?

And the answer for these referents (square, cube, Aristotle, Napoleon, Superman, Argentinosaurus huinculensis, 2015 Corvette, chair, house) is yes.

And the answer for these referents (love, justice, happiness, running, performance, arbitration, government, adaptability) is no.

• Andre' Jacobs 4 years ago

No. Look again.

"b. Something distinguished from its surroundings by its outline."

See 'distinguished by'? The 'thing' is distinguished 'by' it's outline, which means that 'no outline' means 'no thing'. 'No outline' means you cannot distinguish it from its surroundings, which means that nothing is being distinguished.

That is why your defintion can be defeated by simply turning off the light. No light = no distinction = no thing.

That is why focusing on 'shape' is not a good idea. There needs to be light for there to be shape. There needs to be contrast for there to be shape.

Even in the dark, the 'thing' will still be there, but it won't have any shape. You are looking for a word to define that 'thing' that remains, but that word is not 'shape', because without light 'shape' disappears.

You claim the thing still has shape even though it is dark, but this is where you move into the realm of belief, and you leave science behind. You believe that 'thing' still has shape, but there is no way of proving it, because shape depends on light and contrast. You turn on the light, and there is shape. You turn off the light, and the thing's shape disappears.

It is the same argument for belief in the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow. You cannot prove it. You can only predict it with a certain amount of accuracy based on previous observation. To say that the sun will rise, is faith.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"That is why your defintion can be defeated by simply turning off the light."

So, the blind don't need those canes after all, eh? Or should they only use the cane when the lights are on?

At any rate, I always wondered why I couldn't feel my girlfriend's perky, round, tits after we turned off the light. Thanks to you I'll leave a fluorescent on 24/7 so I never let her down again! Whew!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“ 'no outline' means 'no thing'.”

Yes, if ‘it’ has no border, then it is not an object.

“'No outline' means you cannot distinguish it from its surroundings, “

Where did the ‘YOU’ come from? Who suddenly introduced an observer in a Universe with only ONE object? Was it God? Can’t be....God doesn’t exist! This is the context and don’t you ever forget it.

The object is there on its own. And....it is different from its environment of space all on its own without anybody bearing witness.

“That is why your defintion can be defeated by simply turning off the light.”

In a single object Universe....there is no light, no color, no weight/mass, no energy, no time, no observer, no God. There is only object separated from space. This spatial separation is called SHAPE. Repeat it until you learn it.

“You claim the thing still has shape even though it is dark,”

No! It is YOU who hypothesizes that an object loses its border/outline when the light is turned off. I already TESTED your hypothesis. I just went into my bedroom and turned off the light. I couldn’t see anything. I threw my ring into the air and it landed on my bed, not the floor. Obviously the bed had shape & border even though the light was off and I couldn’t see it. There you go.....an experiment which refutes your hypothesis. There is “your” proof, as you like! Please tested it out yourself if you don’t believe me.

“So, the blind don't need those canes after all, eh? Or should they only use the cane when the lights are on?”

Exactly otium! This is his hypothesis. I just went to my blind neighbor a few houses down and told him not to use his cane again because it disappears when he turns the lights off. He laughed at me.....wonder why?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

We can run your experiments all day long. An object will always have shape without observation no matter what. When will you concede it so we can move on to more important issues and answer the rest of your questions?

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

This should be fun. Will Andre come back to defend his claims, bad mouth Fatfist and/or me, or not come back at all?

But, the real question is, is Andre only a shapeless 'mass' when the lights go out?

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Kinky!

• Andre' Jacobs 4 years ago

Fatfist, what is ironic is that it is not my theory that makes things disappear when the lights go off; it is yours.

In my world I am very comfortable with the lights off, because my idea of an object is not reliant on its shape. Yours is.

It is in your world where it logically follows that things disappear when they don't have shape.

The reason being, that shape is all about light and sight. Without light and without an observer, 'shape' does not exist as a concept. The concept 'shape' is reliant on an observer, because the concept was 'created' by an observer.

Objects continue existing when no-one is looking, but what they 'are' is impossible to say when you are NOT looking.

When you ARE looking, they present as objects with shape, mass, color and a whole host of other properties, BECAUSE you are looking. It is not the act of looking that creates them, it is the act of looking that creates the perception of them.

You are calling this 'essence' 'shape', but unluckily for you, you do not get to decide what words, or concepts, mean .....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“The reason being, that shape is all about light and sight. Without light and without an observer, 'shape' does not exist as a concept. “

Shape is a concept. Concepts do NOT exist. Not now ....not ever. Only objects exist. All this is explained in my article...The Ontology of Language: What is a concept.

1) I have already explained to you MANY MANY times that we determine what an object is by eliminating the observer. This means that we consider a lone object universe to understand what a discrete, standalone, observer-free object is all about. This is how critical thinking works.

2) In a lone object universe, there are NO observers and NO God to watch over it.

3) The object does not blend into space and vanish into the void. Matter does not convert into the void and vice versa.

4) The object is spatially separated from its environment of space all on its own.

5) We invent the term SHAPE (a concept) and use it as a syntactic label to explicitly relate what is inside the boundary to what is outside (i.e. the environment). This is the ontology of ‘the’ object!

6) Shape does not exist. It is a word WE invented (a concept) to describe the actual scenario in reality (see #5).

7) There is NO observer....ever!

Now....my dear Andre....the time for you to TROLL has come to an end! I will not let this turn into your personal circus show. This is a serious intellectual discussion about the reality of object ontology.

a) Refute the definition of ‘object’ without introducing your stupid Religion of Observation.

b) Provide your own definition which I cannot refute.

c) Accept MY definition.

Or

d) IGNORE my definition and walk away with your Pride and your Religion and enjoy the rest of your life...and make sure the frickin’ door hits you in the ass!

Which will it be????

Don’t answer any question I didn’t ask. Don’t tell me who your mom is dating or whether she uses birth control. Don’t tell me whether your wife likes it on top or on bottom. Don’t tell me what you had for breakfast. Just answer the damn Q above: a or b or c or d.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

I have told you before, an object is a concrete concept (which means it exists in reality) which exhibits measurable, physical properties such as mass.

Don't bother refuting my definition though. You are not serious about this shit anyway. All you are interested in is peddling your own religion. Good luck with that.

You can't even tell the difference between a thought-experiment and reality for fuck's sake ...

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

"an object is a concrete concept (which means it exists in reality) "

Concepts are NOT made from CEMENT and are impossible to be 'concrete', got it?

A 2018 Corvette is an object. It does NOT exist in reality. But 'it' can be illustrated and clay models can be made of 'it'. If the non-existing '2018 Corvette' was not an object with shape....then it would be impossible to imagine or illustrate this 'thing'.

Your Religion of Observation is officially debunked, Andre. You are finished. Say "hi" to your mom for me!

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Wow, that's all over the palce Andre. Let's do a quick breakdown:

"an object is a concrete concept"

So, a shape is a ?? non-shape...

"(which means it exists in reality)"

...that has shape + location... ?!?!

Makes no sense Andre!

"measurable, physical properties"

What's measurement got to do with it? Before humans measured things, did nothing exist?!

"such as mass."

Mass is a concept. There's no mass "in" or "on" or "coming out of" any object. Mass is a unit of measurement WE invented.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

There are 2 fundamental problems underlying brain-dead Andre's Religion:

1) He confuses OBJECTHOOD with EXISTENCE. These are two separate concepts which are not synonyms, as Andre likes to treat them.

2) Andre is a Religionist who thinks that nothing is an object until he explicitly bears witness to it. Otherwise it vanishes into the void forever and ever amen!

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Just check out the new comments on my latest hub if you want an added laugh!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

You two are like bitches in heat sniffen each other .... But neither has the proper baby-makin tools ....

Object = something that is perceived to be

Shape = the property of an object that tells you where it ends

Exist = anything that IS. Yes, that includes fairies, unicorns and any fantasy that fatfist can come up with.

Concept = a mental construct that bears meaning

What you two jokers don't realize, is that a definition does not define, it describes. Words don't have meaning because they are defined. They have meaning because they are USED. Defining meaning is the same as reaching a consensus. There is no magic here ....

You two are so desperate to keep the world from spinning, that you have settled for some lame-ass definition that you think you are defending, but you are actually keeping it alive by actively ignoring any alternative.

I have met a lot of people, but I am constantly awed by the lengths some would go to, to NOT have to think. Congratulations ...... you are growing the ranks of those who are too stupid to realize how stupid they are .....

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Andre Jacobs 10 minutes ago from GoneDung "

Ha! Ha! Hey, look it's shit for brains. Or, as he likes to call himself, the man from GoneDung.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"like bitches in heat sniffen each other .... But neither has the proper baby-makin tools"

Lol!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Hey, MonkeyNuts! Good to see you ... here, have some ....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

Great, looks like Andre finally opted for option: b) Provide your own definition which I cannot refute.

“Object = something that is perceived to be”

The Moon was an object before anyone perceived it because it has craters on it that are older than our species. My bed is an object which I cannot perceive in total darkness because my pillow landed on the bed and not on the floor. The pillow cannot perceive, but it came on surface-to-surface contact with the bed because the bed has SHAPE.

Refuted!

“Shape = the property of an object that tells you where it ends”

How does it TELL you.....shape talks? It send you text messages? It send you smoke signals? Obviously SHAPE is a concept. Concepts cannot TELL or communicate. Only people communicate. The Moon and my bed had shape before they even told me via text messages.

Refuted!

“Exist = anything that IS.”

exist: is

is: exist

So all you provided were synonyms (circular definitions); i.e. rhetoric: a horse just ‘is’ a horse of course of course!

You have not defined 'exist', and I have doubts you can. What makes you think you can define it by copying synonyms from dictionaries that were written by English grad students who haven’t a clue about Physics?

Refuted!

“Concept = a mental construct that bears meaning”

What is a mental “construct”? Something your God constructed with cement or with steel? Meaningless gibberish!

Refuted!

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects

Repeat them until they sink in....resistance is futile.

“Words don't have meaning because they are defined. They have meaning because they are USED.”

Wrong, idiot!

Any word is first and foremost a lexical concept. As a concept, it establishes a relation between 2 or more objects. It is THIS relation which gives meaning or defines the word. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to invent a word....or to even put letters together to form one....UNLESS A SPECIFIC RELATION IS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN EXPLICIT OBJECTS. This is what defines all words in any language. Words are explicitly defined at their point of conception.

Andre....please tell your Mom to quit dating other men and get back together with your Dad. They have some unfinished business. They need to pool their funds together so they can send you to Grammar School to learn the basics of language, grammar and lexes.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Just because something is not being perceived, doesn't mean it stops existing, you hilbilly twat. YOU are the only one claiming that that is what happens. Who is mixing 'existence' and 'perception' now?

You are right, 'shapes' don't talk. How smart of you. You having to nitpick like this shows me you ain't got nothin Uncle Joe.

Yes, you inbred spunkbubble, it doesn't matter which definition for 'exist' you use, you are ALWAYS going to end up with a tautology. Do you know why? Come on ..... you know you can do it .....

Aaaah, can you remind me which two, or more, concepts 'justice' is referncing? I seem to have misplaced mine.

Words are NEVER explicitly defined. They are ONLY defined through usage. That's why you get words which change meaning over time.

You live in a world of 'things' and 'little bits of things' ..... you really need to get over it. As practical as Newtonian physics is on the meta-level, it simply does not describe reality. Open a book, do a search. Pay someone to do it for you if you are too lazy ..... Just do SOMETHING to get out of this slumber party you call your understanding of the world.

P.S. I really enjoy this back-and-forth with you .... I might even be falling in love ..... :)

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Oops, meant to say "Which two, or more, OBJECTS justice is referencing." I think I am subconsciously trying to deny that anyone can be stupid enough to make a statement such as the one you did ......

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Just because something is not being perceived, doesn't mean it stops existing”

No, of course not. Because it is impossible for ‘something’ to start or stop existing. Existence is a static concept not a dynamic one. But this is irrelevant to your predicament, as existence is NOT the same as objecthood!

In any case, we are not talking about existence so stay in context of the discussion; i.e ‘object’ only! Don’t wander off in tangents as this will not help save your Religion. We will talk about existence after YOU settle on a definition for OBJECT. Until then....don’t even talk about existence, got it?

“Words are NEVER explicitly defined.”

It is IMPOSSIBLE to put letters together to form a lexical word without forming its concept. The concept explicitly DEFINES the word, whether you like it or not. Here, educate yourself:

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

“P.S. I really enjoy this back-and-forth with you”

LOL...it doesn’t work that way here, my dear Andre. Here you WILL answer questions whether you like it or not!!!

Now, Andre....here comes the moment of “truth” for you. Since you failed to define ‘object’ (option b), you have the following options left: a, c, d

a) Refute the definition of ‘object’ without introducing your stupid Religion of Observation.

b) Provide your own definition which I cannot refute.

c) Accept MY definition.

Or

d) IGNORE my definition and walk away with your Pride and your Religion and enjoy the rest of your life...and make sure the frickin’ door hits you in the ass!

Which will it be???

Don’t answer any question I didn’t ask. Just answer the damn Q above: a or c or d.

Or you can try having another stab at option b and see if you can stump idiot fatfist.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

A good example here for our friend to understand is this:

An object can be 2d. It can be an optical illusion, like the objects on your screen? Do they exist? When you watch a movie of an elephant (object), is there an actual (real, existing) elephant moving around inside your screen?

No.

Hence, exist requires true location, not just 'objecthood'.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

If I must..... Do me a favor though and try to stick to the argument.

Your definition of object: That which has shape.

The first, and most obvious problem with this 'definition' is that there are things that have shape but are not objects. So, you need to create a new concept, called 'abstract objects'.

Let's take a look at the meanings of these two concepts; 'abstract' and 'object'.

Abstract:

"expressing a quality apart from an object" (Mirriam Webster)

"expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed." (Dictionary.com)

"Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept." (The free online dictionary)

Object:

"anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form." (Dictionary.com)

"something material that may be perceived by the senses" (Mirriam Webster)

"Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing." (The Free Dictionary)

Can you see that they are mutually exclusive concepts? Meaning, it is the same as saying "a square circle". To be clear; an object is per definition NOT abstract.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"When you watch a movie of an elephant (object), is there an actual (real, existing) elephant moving around inside your screen?"

Lawrence Krauss and his followers believe so. We live in a 2D Universe 'cuz the Universe must reflect Mathematical 'realities,' remember?

Like Andre, Krauss is a Magician and can find a 2D tit in the dark!

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre, I object (dissent, argue against, direct emotion toward)! Because the object (goal, aim) is that we define 'object' in the context of a rational explanation of physical reality independent of observers.

But, thank you again for telling us that the moon is an object only when we can see it.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"there are things that have shape but are not objects"

Wait, ssshhh everyone. Quite down. Andre Jacobs is about to tell us what has shape but isn't an object. OK, we're all ears here.

Shapeless object is: _______________.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

""anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form." "

Uh...Andre....'form' is another term for 'shape.' Shapes can change. The moon changes shape every time a meteor blasts a crater into it. This doesn't mean it completely loses shape!

""something material that may be perceived by the senses""

Uh...Andre...'may be perceived by the senses' doesn't mean it *must* be perceived by the senses. For something to be perceived it *must have shape,* but this doesn't mean something must be perceived in order to have shape. You've got it all ass-backward. May ≠ must or necessarily.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“The first, and most obvious problem with this 'definition' is that there are THINGS that have shape but are not objects.”

Obvious, huh? Just listen to yourself, you fool.....the word “THINGS” you used above is a synonym for OBJECT. You just said: “Ummm, duh....an object has shape but it’s not an object”. Please THINK before you post so you don’t end up refuting yourself.

Object: that which has shape. (Synonyms: exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

“So, you need to create a new concept, called 'abstract objects'.”

Already did....weren’t you paying attention instead of chewing gum? An abstract object is an object which is IMPOSSIBLE to exist. Example: cube, triangle, tribar, circle. But it is first and foremost an object because it has shape. The issue of existence is the SECOND phase of analysis whereby we systematically resolve whether such a proposed object is possible to exist, or is impossible to exist. If we resolve it to be impossible, then the object is properly termed: ABSTRACT OBJECT.

Exist is not a synonym of ‘object’, so please, DO NOT open this NEW can of worms until YOU settle on a definition for object. I will not let this discussion degenerate into a million irrelevant contexts. One ‘thing’ at a time.....PLEASE!!!

“ABSTRACT & OBJECT.....Can you see that they are mutually exclusive concepts?”

Indeed they are....and so is the concept of SHAPE and EXISTENCE mut-excl from them too. They are 3 completely different concepts and not synonyms....and they are part of a SECOND phase of resolution, not the initial phase of 'objecthood'....so frickin’ what???

The word OBJECT simply encompasses any LEXICAL TERM which resolves to having SHAPE. ‘Existence’ and ‘abstractness’ plays NO role here!! They are in the SECOND PHASE OF ANALYSIS AND RESOLUTION which we will NOT discuss right now because it is a completely different can of worms.

Andre....please do not mix up terms and contexts. This discussion is only about the context of OBJECTHOOD i.e. what is an object and how to unambiguously define it WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS. As you can see....this article does not discuss existence; only object. Please respect that.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

What's wrong with you people? Did all of you drink from the same Well of Stupid?

Otium, my point is exactly that the elephant on your screen has shape, but is NOT an object. According to Fatfist, that elephant would be called an 'abstract object'.

You said: "Because the object (goal, aim) is that we define 'object' in the context of a rational explanation of physical reality independent of observers." Why? Why do you want to define 'object' independently of observers?

Look at this definition again: "anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form." I think they put in 'relatively stable' because if they didn't then any ball of gass would also be called an object. I don't understand your problem here though. I am not saying that objects don't have shape, I am saying you cannot define an object simply on the basis of shape. That is what you are trying to do.

"something material that may be perceived by the senses"

'May be' in this sense means 'can be', not 'might be'.

ScienceOfLife:

"what has shape but isn't an object" is NOT the same as "shapeless object" ...... it is the same as "an objectless shape". Best not post when you are drunk. It makes you look stupid. The elephant on your TV is an 'objectless' shape.

Fatfist:

I said: The first, and most obvious problem with this 'definition' is that there are things that have shape but are not objects. So, you need to create a new concept, called 'abstract objects'.

thing: An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. (The free dictionary)

But you are right, what I should have said was "The first, and most obvious problem with this 'definition' is that there are shapes which are not objects. So, you need to create a new concept, called 'abstract objects'.

Shapes that represent objects are called pictures. The picture is an object, because it has physical qualities, but the shape of the picture IS not the object it represents. You call pictures 'abstract concepts', but you cannot do that, because 'abstract' and 'object' are mutually exclusive terms.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Since you brought up existence, I think it requires a comment.

The term 'abstract object' is a nonsense term, so it cannot point to anything. It is what you call a contradiction in terms, since 'abstract' and 'object' are mutually exclusive terms.

Shapes which are not objects do exist though. They are also called pictures (of objects).

You want to make 'existence' subject to 'object', but you cannot. Existence is already part of the definition of 'object'. They are not synonyms because when you say 'object', existence is assumed. You cannot refer to an object that does not exist.

Your biggest category is "That which exists." It is impossible to talk about 'that which does not exist'. Under this category you have 'That which exists in the physical world' and 'That which does NOT exist in the physical world'. Concepts would fit into both categories, but objects only fits into 'That which exists in the physical world'.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“According to Fatfist, that elephant would be called an 'abstract object'.”

Drop the strawmen. An abstract object is one which is impossible to exist. The elephant object can obviously exist....examples of them in nature.

“I am saying you cannot define an object simply on the basis of shape.”

All you have to do is give ONE example of an object which doesn’t have shape. Since you can’t, you finally realize that all objects have shape, hence the definition object=that which has shape.

“The elephant on your TV is an 'objectless' shape.”

No, you fool.....elephant is a lexical term which resolves to an object. The elephant you saw on TV is an object....any child can point to it. Existence is not a synonym for object. You cannot see SHAPES on TV or anywhere. Shapes are concepts. You can only SEE objects!

“thing: An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. (The free dictionary)”

Entity is synonym for thing and object. So you’ve said nothing!

And nobody was here to perceive a quality of the Moon or KNOW it before humans evolved. The Moon was already an object all on its own. Again, you’ve said nothing!

And a 2015 Corvette which is being modelled right now does NOT have its own existence. This object does not exist. Again, you’ve said nothing!

Thing is not an idea. Idea does not have shape. Idea is synonym for CONCEPT. Again, you’ve said nothing!

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

"The first, and most obvious problem with this 'definition' is that there are shapes which are not objects. “

Dude....hellllloooooo....anybody in there????

Shapes are NOT objects...not now, not ever. Shape is a concept. You cannot point to or illustrate ‘a’ concept. You can only point to or illustrate an object. You are grossly confused!

“Shapes that represent objects are called pictures.”

You need to go back to Kindergarten.

1) A picture is an object. Go to your local Photo Store and ask for one.....I think they are 25 cents each.

2) Shapes do NOT represent objects. Shapes do not have presence in reality nor representations. Shapes are concepts, only!

“The picture is an object,”

Yes, because it has shape. It has LxWxH and a border. It is spatially separated from space....and from the Moon.

“but the shape of the picture IS not the object it represents.”

Duhhhhh....you think? Of course not, idiot. The pictures I get from my Photo Store are rectangular prints. The object represented in the picture may be a round soccer ball of all things.....

“You call pictures 'abstract concepts', but you cannot do that,”

Never did that. This is your strawman, again! A picture is an object. You can purchase them for about 25 cents from your Photo Store.....try it sometime so you can wake the hell up!!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

"when you say 'object', existence is assumed. "

2020 Corvette is an object for which existence is not assumed. Call Chevrolet and they will set you straight.

"You cannot refer to an object that does not exist."

I just did, you fool. Look ^^^

" It is impossible to talk about 'that which does not exist'."

You may be right. I've never heard of anybody talking about dinosaurs or Aristotle.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

I don't know what you are sniffing, drinking, smoking or injecting .... but you have to stop. You have lost contact with reality, dude .....

Object = that which has shape

That which has shape = object

The elephant on your TV has shape, but it is not an object. Your shadow has shape and it is not an object. That Corvette you are drooling over, has shape and it is NOT an object.

Yes, all objects have shape, since 'shape' is part of the definition, you retard, but not all of 'that which has shape' are objects .....

The 2020 Corvette is a concept, not an object, and you CAN refer to concepts because they Do exist. This is obvious because we are both refering to a Corvette 2020. What you cannot do is point to a Corvette 2020 in reality. We both know that too. So, your only problem here, is your own definition. That's why you have to go redefining 'object', 'concept' and 'exist', because you have to fix the inconsistencies your definition is creating.

Now calm down. What you are trying to do here is not possible. Give it up. Scrap it. And then try to figure out WHY you are doing it.

What IS possible to do, is fuck yourself up so royally so you don't know which side you are shitting from. That is what you are busy doing here. And your shit-for-brains friends are helping you ....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“The elephant on your TV has shape, but it is not an object.”

It certainly IS an object. The TV merely shows a video of an OBJECT....not a concept. Any word in any language (like elephant) either resolves to an object or a concept, there is no other option. You cannot SEE a video of ‘a’ concept. You cannot SEE any concepts...period!

concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

All relations are established in the brain of man via atomic interactions. This refers to ACTIVITY (i.e. verb), and not an ENTITY which an idiot like you can claim to SEE. Concepts (i.e. relations) do not exist in reality and hit you over the head when an idiot like you is not looking.

“That Corvette you are drooling over, has shape and it is NOT an object.”

It is an object, like any car is an object. Just call Chevy and ask them. Watch how they laugh at you. We don’t need to have ‘it’ (i.e. noun/object) present in front of us. It (i.e. noun/object) can be illustrated or prototyped in clay if need be. Regardless....Corvette is a car....and ”car” is a word which resolves to object, not concept. Go back to Kindergarten.

“but not all of 'that which has shape' are objects”

The word “THAT” is a placeholder for any word, you fool. If this word can resolve to as having shape/form (spatially separated from its environment), then it is indeed an object. Car, elephant..are both objects. Go ask any child. They are smarter than you.

“you CAN refer to concepts because they Do exist.”

Oh, what do you mean by ‘exist’?

Here you go, define exist:______________

Then you’ll know if concepts exist.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“That's why you have to go redefining 'object', 'concept' and 'exist',”

Redefine????

My dear God! I never thought about that. Damn....I think that Andre may have caught me with my pants down. Oooops!!!

Ok Andre, let’s see the REAL definition of object, concept, exist. Then we will all know for sure whether your above statement is the case.

Here you go....please give the audience the REAL definitions BEFORE I allegedly redefined them.

Object:________

Concept:_______

Exist:__________

Please fill in the blanks and wipe the floor with idiot fatfist’s face.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

No, the elephant on your screen is not an object. It is an image of an object. See how your definition is fucking with your reality?

"concept: a relation between 2 or more objects." - Please point to the two objects that 'justice' is the relation of.

Concepts are not objects. Thank you for pointing that out. Oh, wait, that is the kind of shit mental patients need to be reminded of. Could you send me the number for your institution? I think they need to up your dose.

"The word “THAT” is a placeholder for any word, you fool."

Wow, we are smart today. Now check this shit out:

That which has shape = object

The Corvette 2020 which has shape = object

The elephant ON your screen which has shape = object

And here we go again:

Object: something with physically measurable qualities such as weight, shape and position (Read: Anything you can touch, see, interact with on a physical plane, and in your world Fatfist, anything you can physically fuck)

Concept: a mental construct (Read: Anything you can think of)

Exist: Everything that IS. (Read: If you cannot think it, it doesn't exist.)

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

There are no 'real' definitions for anything. All we have are approximations. That is partly the reason why you can make up definitions as you please, as you have demonstrated.

The thing is that some definitions are better than others. Some, like yours, are internally inconsistent, meaning that they don't even hold up at first glance, while others need to be verified against reality, and that is the tricky part. Because words change meaning and definitions need to keep track of these changes. That's why you need new editions of dictionaries, because there are constantly new words and new meanings. People don't agree about the meanings of words either. It's not because they are stupid, but because the meanings of words are not set in stone, but are defined while being used.

For some reason you don't like this. You want things to have clear meanings. Well, sorry mate, but the world does not care what you want. If this situation is uncomfortable for you ..... hey, don't come in the kitchen.

It is possible to NOT think about anything, ever. Many people do that. Why don't you just hop along and join these happy fellars. I think that'll be more comfortable for you ..

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“It is an image of an OBJECT. “

The image is representation of .....as you said...an OBJECT! You’ve just said in no ambiguous terms that the elephant is an object, as all images represent objects...NOT concepts! Remember: it is IMPOSSIBLE to represent a concept in any image. IMAGES ONLY REPRESENT OBJECTS. Repeat that until it sinks in.

“Please point to the two objects that 'justice' is the relation of.”

It’s at LEAST 2 objects, Andre. In the context of law: judge, prosecutor, people in jury, defense attorney, accused, victim, witness, police, court clerk, court building, prison building, etc. etc. etc. (do some research on law and fill in the rest as they are many). I will not spend all day educating you on law.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?????????? OMG.....holy jumpin’ Jesus Christ!!!

A shadow does NOT have shape. Andre is still pondering that one. He thinks that the shape of the tree includes its shadow, LOL!

Shadows are NOT objects you idiot. They don't have shape ON THEIR OWN. There is no standalone object called 'a' shadow. Can't have a universe in which there is JUST 'a' single shadow. Objects don't require other objects in order to be objects, like a shadow obviously does. What a moron. A shadow ‘EXTENDS’ (CONCEPTUALLY, you fool -- C O N C E P T U A L L Y! Can you understand that much?) from the tree to the wall. A shadow doesn’t have shape because it is not ALL THE WAY AROUND. 'It' is NOT standalone. Got it, you fool? Where does the alleged shape of the shadow begin, you deranged loony? At the Sun? Can we have the shadow of a tree all alone in the Universe? As the only object in the Universe?

A shadow is a concept which necessarily requires at least TWO objects!!!!

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects!!!!

You need a brain for this. You are too stupid for this critical analysis, Andre. Waaaaaaaayyyyyy tooooo STUPID!!!!

“Object: some thing with physically measurable qualities such as weight, “

Something=object. LOL ...that’s circular.

Measureable?? LOL...Nobody could measure the Moon if humans did not evolve here or when they weren’t here. The Moon was still an object though.

Weight?? LOL....Weight is a concept which requires at minimum TWO objects. A lone object cannot have weight or mass, as it needs another object to gravitationally attract it.

Concept: a mental construct

What is a “mental construct”, dear Andre? A concept? LOL...circular meaningless gibberish!

“Exist: Everything that IS”

Is: exist

Exist: is

LOL...circular meaningless rhetorical gibberish.

Would you like to ask some other English grads to define these words of Physics for you? LOL.

Andre: ““That's why you have to go redefining 'object', 'concept' and 'exist',””

Andre: “There are no 'real' definitions for anything.”

Ha! Ha! Ha! Now Andre denies his God....just like Peter denied Jesus. First he claimed that I re-defined the super-duper real definitions....and now that I educated him...he turns the other cheek and denies there ever were any super-duper real definitions to begin with. LOL. What a deranged looney. Ha ha ha....it gets better with Andre with every post. Thanks for the laughs, Andre.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Andre: It is crackers to slip rozer the dropsy in snide.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Hey FatFist, I'm gathering up some shadow right now. I realized I could use some next time I'm on a long trip and have to take a piss on the side of the road in broad daylight. I'll just put some shadow in front of me, and wala, instant camouflage!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Yes, monkey....please get me some of that shadow too. Since a shadow doesn't have a surface, nobody can grab 'it' and pull it away from me when I cover myself during a bank robbery. Even the police can't catch me when I cover myself with this supernatural blanket Andre calls: shadow.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

My wife asked why I was laughing so hard. When I told her she said she can make her shadow dance!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

LOL, I am still laughing monkey...

Deranged lunatics like Andre are not just a danger to themselves....but to society. These folks really underscore the point of OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT Physics which underlies all my hubs.

Asylum patients such as Andre observe a light “effect” on the wall. So they point at ‘it’ and declare ‘it’ to have shape, even though there is no shape anywhere on that wall. They have just used their subjective eyesight to SEE a frickin’ ghost and declare it as proven by their very own eyes. LOL.

Remember: effects or any verbs are concepts, not objects. Effects we call “shadows” do not have shape because concepts do not have shape. Andre just proved that observers and their subjective vision play tricks on them and get them to invent ghosts and Gods in reality.

And now Andre knows why we remove all observers in a lone object Universe so we can objectively define OBECT: that which has shape.

There are only objects and concepts. Only objects can ever have shape. All else are concepts. We’re done!

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Yeah, I told my wife, when she said, "but you can see it" to think of it like a mirage... a trick of the brain!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

"a trick of the brain"

Exactly what Andre's brain has been doing for the past few days.

Physics + Eye-Witnesses = Religion

No question about it. I dare anyone to argue otherwise.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Of course Andre better beware of the Vashta Nerada if he ever sees two shadows. Bwahahaha!

(Dr Who alien swarm creatures.)

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre.....you've had enough to drink. Your Religion of Observation is obviously thoroughly debunked. You have nothing left. When you are able to talk intelligently without strawmen and have something new to offer, or if you can answer options a or b or c or d given earlier....then you are welcome to join the discussion again. But trolling & spamming will not be tolerated here.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Fatfist

I have to question your reasoning here.

"There is no standalone object called 'a' shadow."

And:

"effects or any verbs are concepts, not objects. Effects we call “shadows” do not have shape because concepts do not have shape. Andre just proved that observers and their subjective vision play tricks on them and get them to invent ghosts and Gods in reality."

In other hubs you've quite explicitly stated that God is a hypothesized object, which through critical reasoning, turns out to be a *non-existent object*, since God has no location. To exist, as you've defined the term, is object + location. Quite simply: God is a shape with nowhere to be.

We are left, then, asking ourselves if such 'objects' can stand alone. The answer must be "No." Such 'objects' would have to be concepts, since they are the effect of an existing being's brain activity. Non-existent shapes are an effect we call 'imaginary'; 'imagination' being an activity of living bodies, a relationship of atoms. The same must be said of 'assuming/hypothesizing.'

Yet, here you say that a shadow has no shape since it cannot stand alone. How is a shadow considered to be any different than God? How can God be considered to have shape, to be an object, but a shadow can't?

I hope my questions are clear enough.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

otium,

"God & shadow......We are left, then, asking ourselves if such 'objects' can stand alone. ......How is a shadow considered to be any different than God? How can God be considered to have shape, to be an object, but a shadow can't?"

This is very simple. People are known to make claims of entities existing because they saw ‘this’ or ‘that’ with their eyes. “THEY” saw it....fine and dandy. But what about the rest of us who didn’t see it? What do we do.....believe them? Obviously not.

We need to take their PROPOSAL at face value and critically reason whether:

1) It can possibly be an object.

2) And if so, can this object possibly exist.

God is an object because we can illustrate or make a prototype statue out of Him. We don’t need the theist to bring God from Heaven above and right here in front of us in order to determine whether God is an object. Obviously God is an object.....obviously God can be the only object (standalone) in the Universe as Hypothesized by the theist. God is indeed a valid hypothesis. It is irrelevant whether God is made from gold, silver, atoms, quarks, whatever.....God is indeed an object and that is all that is relevant to us. But can God possibly exist? I answer this question in detail here:

https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Does-...

‘A’ shadow, otoh, is not a noun. Shadow is an effect of light. What we SEE is not an object on the wall. What we see is what we CONCEPTUALIZE extending from an object, like a tree, and extending from the tree to the wall. Shadow is an effect which extends from the tree, but NOT all the way around the tree....for if it did....then the shadow would have its own independent shape from the tree. That is, it would stand alone! Shadow is an effect conceptually rooted at the base of the tree. Obviously, ‘a’ shadow does not have shape. Our eyes and brain fooled us because we did not take into consideration that the shadow is not standalone without the tree being present. Shadow is simply an effect of the varying frequency of light on the wall. A portion of the wall’s surface is vibrating at a different frequency to cause this effect.

'A' shadow requires a medium onto which its visual effect can be cast. Without the three elements required of ‘a’ shadow – light, the object casting the shadow, and the medium acting as a screen – we have no shadow. No stand alone object requires the presence of another one to exist. Shadow is an effect, not a thing. Shadow is a movie, not a photograph.

Light at different frequencies does NOT make new objects materialize. Hence shadow is an effect....not an object...and obviously has no shape (irrespective of what a stupid human ape SEES and testifies to).

So....God meets the object criterion, but ‘shadow’ fails it miserably.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Otium......obviously what our eyes SEE and what our brains INTERPRET are completely different and divorced from each other. Not always....but you get the idea. This is how the idea of the God of Abraham was probably invented. Someone saw a shadow "moving" on a moonlit night in the desert and whoa....God!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

LOL ... wow! Did Otium see you stretching there? If he has half a brain his next question will be : "So, how is seeing a shadow and seeing anything else different? Seeing anything involves light and the effects of light." But I am guessing he's not going to ask that because he doesn't want to be 'a stupid human ape'.

Shadow is not a noun? He is not going to call you on that? You can make a statue of god? LOL ..... Man, you are a piece of work ....

I had a roommate that you remind me of. He studied philosophy together with me, but he was pisspoor at arguing. He just loved telling other students, especially women, who never studied philosophy, all about the stuff he knew ...... for the effect, you see.

You do the same. You argue with half-wits cause that makes you look smart. You are not a nice person, dude .... I don't think I like you.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Wow! Andre, you remind me of the old Timex watch. It took a lickin' and kept on tickin.' Too bad eventually the watch winds down and your time will run out like all the other half-wits.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

MonkeyButt .... Nobody has licked me yet .... I guess fatfist posted that last comment (I didn't expect him to, since he chose not to post my replies on the topic earlier) because he thought he has something to gain from it?

He is a very nasty little man .... and you are an idiot for following him. Each to his own though ....

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

Don't think because I ask questions of Fatfist, or anyone else, you can claim victory for yourself. I ask question in order to clarify either something I'm not putting together or what currently doesn't seem rationally coherent. I think FF did a decent job, honestly.

In fact, with this latest post you only demonstrate your own idiocy further:

"You can make a statue of god?"

Are you so inexperienced to never have seen statues of Apollo, Re, Odin, Jesus or Zeus? Yes ,the statues *exist,* since they are objects in a location, despite whether or not you or I see them. The trick for you is to answer whether or not what the statue represents exists. That's the next question. Do Caesar, Napoleon, George Washington exist today because there are statues of them? Those people once existed, had location,but now only statues of them exist.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the distinctions between existence, object, and concept.

Here's another example of your belief:

Really, Andre? Love, happiness and care, are used as a nouns as well. Are they objects, now? Do I grab a bowlful of love at suppertime? Can I get drunk on a glass of happiness? Do I wipe my butt with a few sheets of care? I'd be hungry, sober and stinky if I did so.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Andre: Er, you can always click on Unfollow, but nah... like the little girlie man you are, you followed him over here from FB crying and tugging on his shirt tail.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre.....please listen up for the SECOND time:

I will NOT tolerate LIES and strawmen here. No frickin' way. I don't give a rat's ass if this is how you argue with theists or with others in order to ATTEMPT to win your arguments. I will not allow you to do this here.

These articles are about INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. Those who don't respect that will get their comments DELETED instantly. Every single post of yours purposefully misrepresents my definitions and my argument even though I specifically stated the context of my argument: observer-independence!

If you wish to argue with eye-witnesses....please go to the Religion Forums. If you wish to argue like a real man,....with honor, dignity, intelligence, honesty.....then you are welcome here. Otherwise, your comments which exhibit LIES will get deleted; especially since I have stated my argument to you hundreds of times already.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“Otium....If he has half a brain his next question will be : "So, how is seeing a shadow and seeing anything else different?”

Otium is a big boy who is extremely knowledgeable in Philosophy. He can put to shame any Priest who calls himself a Philosopher. He is not my puppet and I can bet he is nobody’s puppet....nor is he persuaded by what I post here. In fact....I hate puppets! These articles are here to promote thinking and understanding of reality.....NOT to establish a following. Just like otium, everyone is encouraged to ask questions because some of these arguments are very unique and most people haven’t been exposed to them. They are not predicated on truth/proof/belief/subjectivity like 100% of all arguments in Philosophy are.

Even though I may explain something, it may not be readily apparent to many. This is normal. Those who are not shy to ask questions will force me to explain it in a different way so they can understand. As a proponent of these arguments, if I can’t explain or justify something which I posted here.....then I am in big trouble. Either I have to correct myself and possibly change my argument.....or scrap it altogether. There is no other choice. And the people who follow the discussions here are smart enough to understand that reality is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT. Only Religious apes believe that reality was created just for them (by God, Big Bang, Lawrence Krauss, Ayn Rand, etc)...for their personal whims, emotions and observations.

These articles destroy all Religions because they are able to define what nobody in the history of humanity has ever been able to define: OBJECT & EXIST. There are no definitions for these terms anywhere in Academia. I dare anybody to post them if they disagree. Andre tried posting them from the dictionary and got his ass handed to him on a 24K solid gold platter!! This is what happens when idiots like Andre don’t have a clue.

And what’s worse.....dishonest garbage like Andre are only here to take my statements and misrepresent them (strawmen) with under-handed tricks (sophistry) in an attempt to confuse and persuade the audience. But as everyone witnessed....these tricks backfired on our friend Andre. Andre is a fella who read some articles on the Internets about “How to Argue and Win Every Single Argument” (very popular among atheists). I saw him coming miles away. Andre thought it was business as usual here....that he can lie and use the same tricks he does when debating theists. Boy was he shocked when his wares were useless here. He obsessively tried to misrepresent my definition of OBJECT and SHAPE to no avail. So he thought that by repeating himself over and over and over that he’d win the argument. This idiot doesn’t understand that there are no winners. There are only rational arguments which cannot be refuted.

Andre never came here to have an honest debate, an intellectual discussion or to critique the article with rational points. He came here to obfuscate, misrepresent and misdirect because my articles destroy his Religion. He even sent me some personal messages asking me why I am writing articles which expose Philosophy and Science. Andre is EXTREMELY offended by this. This worthless piece of trash wants to keep humanity still in the Dark Ages just so his Religion can stay alive.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“Otium....If he has half a brain his next question will be : "So, how is seeing a shadow and seeing anything else different?”

As I explained before.....it is impossible to SEE ‘a’ shadow. Shadow is a concept. Shadow is a verb, not a noun. We can only see objects – period!!! Just like we cannot see love, justice, government, truth, etc....we cannot see ‘a’ shadow.

What we are actually seeing is the effects of differentiation in light frequency when light reflects from the surface of a wall exhibiting the shadow “effect” from a tree. The light reflected to our eyes from the region of the shadow effect is of a different frequency than the rest of the wall. This is basic Light Physics and nothing invented by me.

In any case......those who are NOT versed in Light Physics can easily resolve this apparent “shadow dilemma” by explicitly following my definition of OBJECT: that which has shape. Does ‘a’ shadow have shape? Is there an entity (i.e. shadow) on that real wall which is “spatially separated from space”; i.e. with a border, with Length, Width and Height....and with matter inside the border and space outside of it?

Obviously NOT!! You would need a concrete water saw to cut around that shadow effect on the wall to separate a whole piece from that wall in order to have an object. Why? Because that cut piece is now surrounded by space. It now has spatial separation i.e. SHAPE! And it has it all on its own without observers. That cut piece can certainly qualify as being the only object in the Universe.....whereas ‘a’ shadow cannot!

And this is why our definition of OBJECT can be used consistently across all contexts without contradiction. In fact, it is impossible to contradict, as Andre witnessed firsthand. An object is obviously spatially separated. We call this quality: SHAPE. There is no other property a standalone object can ever have...ever!

“Love, happiness and care, are used as a nouns as well. Are they objects, now?”

Andre doesn’t care about the difference between syntactical grammar and contextual grammar....even tho I addressed it in my article on Language Ontology. He is not here to promote an ethical argument....he is just here to LIE.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Thank you, I know how light works.

Fatfist, your definition sucks. Face it. Get over it. Try again. There is no shame in it.

Concepts are real. Observers are real. Objectivity is a myth.

Your whole house of cards is built on this single definition: Objects = that which has shape.

The reason why you cannot find any definitions for 'object' and 'exist' is because every single one of the definitions that have been 'tried', relied on the limited knowledge, and consequent beliefs, of that time.

They are not absent because people have been too stupid to come up with them. They are absent because people are smart enough to know that there aren't any defintions that are universally true. Any defintion is limited to what is known. Your definition is simply stupid.

For someone who does not believe in absolute truth, you are rather sensitive about this definition of yours ..... don't you think?

You are a fake, mate. I am very disappointed, because I am also looking for the holy grail. Your grail is a tin cup spray-painted gold .....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Thank you. Now you're talking. This is the most rational statement you've said here. And the best argument you have put forth against this article.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

I'm going to reply to a message sent by Andre here so we can all be in the loop. The message in full will be posted at the end.

Andre: "Otium, Fatfist said shadow is not a noun. Do you even read his posts?"

Yes, Andre, I did read the post and I've already addressed this concern. Because 'shadow' has been used as a noun doesn't mean:

1. 'Shadow' is therefore an object because we say it is

or,

2. that use dictates reason

Nouns are to refer to *objects,* not verbs irrationally reified into 'objects.' What is referred to as 'shadow' would probably be better expressed as 'shadowing' or 'shading' to express the active relationship between (in our example) tree/light/wall.

Now, Andre, would you consider a '5K Run' an object? Or how about 'my love' for her. Simply because I lying-ly use these terms as nouns, they are reified verbs, not objects. 'A' run is an event where people are running; 'my love' is an emotional relationship with another.

Andre: "Can we be clear here that I am not saying that a shadow is an object. Fatfist's definition of 'object' claims that it is .... Simply because a shadow has a shape, it must be an object according to Fatfist."

Does 'shadowing' stand alone as a shape, Andre? How about running or loving? Shadowing is a relational activity which is dependent upon all the necessary ingredients of at least three existing objects. Sans any one of these the activity ceases, therefore 'shadowing' has no shape of its own. It cannot, no more than can running or love. An 'event' is far better a description for 'shadowing' than it's usage (another verb) as a noun.

Andre: "The same goes for the elephant on his TV. That must be an object too, because it has shape. I am not talking about the actual elephant that was filmed, I am talking about the image on the TV screen."

Yes, the elephant on the TV screen is an object since it has shape. Here you make the rational distinction between the *existing* ('actual') elephant and the non-existing image. But, where you're getting stuck is with 'existence.' It's obvious both the actual elephant and the image are shapes, and therefore objects. However, one exists the other does not.

Andre: Why don't you ask Fatfist this then: "So, how is seeing a shadow and seeing anything else different? Seeing anything involves light and the effects of light.""

Objecthood has nothing to do with *seeing,* Andre. Yes, perceiving is an active relationship between a living object and other objects, living or otherwise. But, the neither the moon's object-hood nor its existence has nothing to do with any perception of it.

===========================

Otium, Fatfist said shadow is not a noun. Do you even read his posts?

Can we be clear here that I am not saying that a shadow is an object. Fatfist's definition of 'object' claims that it is .... Simply because a shadow has a shape, it must be an object according to Fatfist.

The same goes for the elephant on his TV. That must be an object too, because it has shape. I am not talking about the actual elephant that was filmed, I am talking about the image on the TV screen.

Why don't you ask Fatfist this then: "So, how is seeing a shadow and seeing anything else different? Seeing anything involves light and the effects of light."

When I see an object, I am also simply seeing light. A shadow is the absence of light. In both instances light is conveying shape to me. I know what the difference is between a shadow and an object, even though both have shape. Fatfist's definition doesn't allow for a difference.

If you want to attack something, attack his definition. Not me ....

I am sending this here because fatfist is selecting which posts of mine he shows .... As is his right, but it is a little inconvenient if you're trying to have an argument ....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

"“To exist means To Be. Yes, it is circular. It cannot be any other way.”

Then obviously, when you are confronted with a NON-CIRCULAR definition, you would naturally accept it according to your above reasoning, right?

If not, then it's not an issue of circularity as you claimed. So, what is the issue then?

Is it an issue of personal bias? This would be an intellectual no-no!

I cannot fathom any other issue as to why you would not accept it. Can you? If so, please tell us. thanks

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

"On the one hand we have the term for 'be' itself which stems from PIE 'bheu-" which is a term connoting movement......."

Damn otium.......thanks for that nice post. I really learned something today. I hope you don't mind if I make use of the info in your post in the future.

Thanks again!

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Hot damn Otium that was an excellent response. Like fatfist, I learned something too. I tip my hat to ya!

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

I'm glad you both were able to glean something from my rambling.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Otium......I don't wanna put any words in your mouth, but I think that post was a hint of a new hub coming from you. A hub on the philology of 'exist' ;-)

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist, I think I stated clearly enough what I was refering to when I used 'reality.

I said: "My point is that you cannot rearrange reality to fit your definitions. You cannot change a noun to a verb because it does not fit the distinctions you are trying to make."

In this context, 'reality' would refer to the use of 'nouns' and 'verbs'.

"How do we resolve this obvious dilemma? Should we accept YOUR definition of reality?" No, I do. You don't have to. My version of reality has worked out fairly well for me so far. Your version of reality is strange to me. I am questioning your version, since it looks inconsistent to me. Please remember that we were talking about the use of language here. That is the context for these statements.

"Andre, why isn’t an elephant an object? " An elephant is an object. The elephant on your TV, is an image of object. It isn't an object. Your eyes tell you it is, but your brain knows it isn't.

"Aristotle does not exist. But he is nonetheless an object (not abstract). I mean, we would never talk about Aristotle if he was nothing, right? So he is obviously something....there are even statues of him....writings from him, etc. Now....obviously....statues don’t prove existence. But this is NOT the issue. The issue is of OBJECTHOOD only. Do not mix contexts."

You are mixing contexts, not me. Aristotle existed. He does not exist as an object anymore. He only exists as a concept now. How IS he still an object?

Can you please tell me what is wrong with these two definitions?

Object: A material thing that can be seen and touched.

Exist: Have objective reality or being.

"Circularity is a fallacy." Your definition is also circular, as pointed out by Jonas James in the PIS thread.

Object = that which has shape

THAT refering to an object .....

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium,

You said: "A noun is supposed to refer to *something,*". I want to know 'Why?'. Whoever said that nouns must be objects?

"Only something can be placed somewhere. Somewhere is a place. 'Place' (or location) is a relationship, one thing in relation to other things, yet, there must be some intrinsic property which defines 'thinginess.' The only such property can be 'shape,' since 'weight/mass'etc, are predicated upon shape. Shapeless 'mass' is impossible. To 'be' is to be somewhere, and only things/objects can be somewhere. Postulations of 0D 'points in space'are absurd, for they are positing the impossible."

OK, I am going to play along. Let us say that existence only refers to objects with location.

This would mean that thoughts (and concepts) do not exist. In the sense that they do not have shape and location.... yet, we all have thoughts and we all use concepts. What are these 'thingless' ..... ?

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

...thingless....?

....relation 'tween objects, Andre. Unless you can come up with another category.

1) Object

2) concept

3) ?

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Andre is determined to make this issue a subjective one. Can he not imagine a universe without life to perceive it?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“In this context, 'reality' would refer to the use of 'nouns' and 'verbs'.”

Huh? Did you just understand what you typed, Andre? Reality already WAS.....even waaaaayyyy before God created Adam & Eve who conceived of nouns and verbs and syntactical concepts of grammar. Since you cannot offer a non-contradictory defn, I will:

Reality (i.e. what is real) is NOT something we “agree” on.....or go to the ballot box to vote on....or give opinions on. Reality is not politics. Reality just is. And reality already was before God placed Adam and Eve with their opinions on this planet.

“My version of reality has worked out fairly well for me so far. “

Reality is an issue we CRITICALLY ANALYSE and not subject to an individual. You are NOT part of a different reality than other people.

Physics is the study of reality....that study of what is REAL.....and NOT the study of what is fake, artificial, metaphorical, figurative, spiritual, opinionated, decreed, or voted on by an authority, like they do in Religion. Reality is literally the “real deal”. Hence Physics is LITERAL and doesn’t use metaphors or figures of speech.

Reality is a synonym for existence. What exists is real, and what is real, exists. Reality (existence) circumscribes only OBJECTIVE presence, and NOT spiritual, meta-physical, supernatural or magical presence.

‘Real’ is an adjective which refers to that which has objective presence – independent of the opinion of any human or sentient observer. The Moon was real (i.e. existed, had objective presence) before life forms evolved on Earth to give their opinions on the issue.

Since Physics is the study of what is REAL, the subject matter of Physics must, absolutely must be a NOUN of REALITY. A “real noun” is what is PHYSICALLY PRESENT. Whether the human sensory system can sense it or SEE it is irrelevant.

Physics comes from the word PHYSICAL. Only objects can be said to be physical. Physics studies ‘that’ which is REAL....’that’ which has PHYSICAL PRESENCE....ie. an object with Universal locale!

Q: What does ‘that’ refer to?

A: Any word you can plug in to be resolved.

Remember, Andre....your friend Bill Allen already agreed that ....real: that which has PHYSICAL PRESENCE. So we are all on the same page now. Finally!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Aristotle existed.”

Yes, this is the hypothesis everyone on the planet assumes.

“He does not exist as an object anymore.”

He does not exist – period!

“He only exists as a concept now.”

Sorry, what exists is what has PHYSICAL PRESENCE (as your friend Bill Allen wholeheartedly agreed!).....as explained above. Unless you can bring ‘a’ concept for show & tell in the Physics Conference, your claim is worthless.

Concepts lack shape. Concepts are nothing!

Exist: Physical (i.e. object) Presence (i.e. location). Only something that is located SOMEWHERE in the Universe can ever be said to exist. We’re done!

Aristotle IS an object. But the poor fella doesn’t exist. Sorry.

“How IS he still an object?”

By definition!!! Whether it is ‘he’, ‘it’, ‘him’, ‘her’, etc. we are necessarily referring to SOMETHING and not nothing......whether we like it or not. Ask any 2 year child whether a person named Aristotle is something or nothing. What will the little kid tell you?

“Object: A material thing that can be seen and touched.”

It necessitates that the Moon was never an object until humans evolved here. And if they never did....the Moon would never be an object. Obviously this is contradictory and beyond ridiculous. Reality is observer-independent. If the Moon was hidden by a permanent cloud cover in our atmosphere, and we never had a space program....the Moon would not exist according to that definition.

“Exist: Have objective reality or being.”

Objective reality is oxymoron...rhetoric. Reality already IS objective whether we like it or not.....whether we explicitly assert it or not.

You just gave me a synonym like everyone else does...x=y, y=x

Reality: existence

Existence: reality

What is real is what exists. What have we learned from this synonym? Nothing!

Real: PHYSICAL PRESENCE (synonym: exist; being; to be, is...etc.)

That which is physical (i.e. object) and is located somewhere in the Universe can only be said to exist.

“Object = that which has shape.....THAT refering to an object “

Nope! ‘That’ refers to any word you can plug in there to resolve whether it is an object. There is no circularity.

My definitions of OBJECT & EXIST are bullet-proof and IMPOSSIBLE to contradict. People have tried to contradict them for the past 15 years.....nobody has been successful. And as you can see, nobody ever will.

“This would mean that thoughts (and concepts) do not exist. In the sense that they do not have shape and location.... yet, we all have thoughts and we all use concepts. What are these 'thingless' ..... ?”

Thoughts and concepts are NOT entities or things. They are phenomena, natural processes mediated by atoms, not spirits and souls. These words resolve to VERBS, not nouns. They are only nouns for the first phase of grammar: Syntactical analysis. In the second phase of Contextual analysis, they resolve to actions that atoms in your brain perform.

The atoms in your brain exist. Their motion or interactions does not exist. Consider a single atom in the Universe. It is impossible for it to have motion.

You still don’t understand the diff between an object and a concept! This is why you are struggling with the basics.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

Now that Bill Allen is a proponent of the definition:

exist/real: physical presence (i.e. an object having location)

it goes without saying that David Huisjen is a proponent too.

Now, let's all get together for a group hug since we are all on the same page. So.....let's move on to bigger and better things...

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Jonas James, you can also not imagine a universe without someone to perceive it. Any universe you imagine, will be based on your current perceptions of the one you live in. So any 'imagined universes' you come up with, will have their basis in your current, subjective, experience. Why don't you get that?

It is impossible to imagine anything that is not based on your subjective experience.

I am NOT saying that the universe stops existing when there is no-one to perceive it. The point is that the 'unperceived universe' is impossible to KNOW. It will in all probability BE there, but WHAT it IS, is impossible to know, since we are bound by our mode of perception, meaning, our eyes, ears, brain etc ......

Even knowing the objective universe, requires a subject. The essence of the moon will still be there, meaning the matter that it is made of, but even saying that requires a subject, since the scope we exist on, meaning the meta-physical, is not the only scope there is. What if consciousness developed on the quantum level? What would that world 'look' like?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist,

"Reality (i.e. what is real) is NOT something we “agree” on.....or go to the ballot box to vote on....or give opinions on. Reality is not politics. Reality just is. And reality already was before God placed Adam and Eve with their opinions on this planet."

You are right, we do not 'agree' on that reality, but that reality is limited. Limited by the level of existence we occupy and limited by the perceptive organs we developed. To say that this limited reality existed, is also to presuppose an observer. See my post to Jonas James.

I am not saying that there was nothing before we came along. I am saying that it is impossible to know what that 'something' was, and is.

"Reality is an issue we CRITICALLY ANALYSE and not subject to an individual. You are NOT part of a different reality than other people."

Yes, I am. And so are you. Above the physical level of existence, on the conceptual level, our realities differ. I suspect within a certain range, otherwise you become 'deranged', but different nontheless.

"What exists is real, and what is real, exists." Heat and cold is real to me. Does it exist according to your definition?

I'm sorry, I don't have much time to respond to your whole post. I will be back once I have some more.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Any universe you imagine, will be based on your current perceptions of the one you live in.”

No, Andre....there is only one Universe, no others. The universe only has objects, not spirits. Perception and subjectivity plays no role here....but you are welcome to give a single example otherwise. But any observer-based example you give can easily be refuted, as you already know.

“It is impossible to imagine anything that is not based on your subjective experience.”

Not really. We can imagine how the invisible mediation of gravity happens, even though we cannot SEE the invisible mediators that pull a pen to the floor. Anything can be imagined. We just need to use our brains. Not everybody does....but...well....them’s the breaks.

“The point is that the 'unperceived universe' is impossible to KNOW.”

Huh? You are going off into irrelevant tangents. There is no provision for knowledge, belief, faith, proof, truth, wisdom, observation, evidence or authority when it comes to critically reasoning reality. This is a conceptual issue only which requires critical thought...not one of evidence. The universe is only comprised of objects....nothing else. What else could you possibly ever KNOW....spirits, souls? Be reasonable.

“we are bound by our mode of perception”

Sorry, Andre....no offence....but speak for yourself only. The rest of us can easily use our thinking capacity to critically reason anything. This hub is a prime example of that. Hey, not everyone has the same genetics. We all have different parents.

“You are right, we do not 'agree' on that reality,”

So? Reality could care less who agrees. This is not politics. We don’t strongarm and outvote people. We take the definition which cannot be contradicted. Those who don’t agree with it will always have a VOICE....they will never be turned away.

Why?

Because they are free to contradict whatever definition they don’t agree with. This is how it’s done. And if they can’t contradict it....then it stays. This is reasonable.

“but that reality is limited. “

There is no provision for any LIMITS in the definition of reality/exist: physical presence.

But you are welcome to justify WHERE there could be any physical limits in that definition. This would obviously contradict it in a jiffy.

“Limited by the level of existence we occupy and limited by the perceptive organs we developed.”

Well, there is your problem right there! There are no observers in reality dictating how it goes about its business. Humans did not invent reality, like they invent cars, and thus dictate their operation. And there is NO God dictating the operation of reality or pressing buttons to make it work either. That’s why reality has no physical limits. Human subjectivity goes out the window.

“ I am saying that it is impossible to know what that 'something' was,”

But Andre, please read your statement again. You already said it was SOMETHING. You already said that only objects are in reality....no spirits. What is real is what exists. And only ‘something’ (i.e. objects) exist. That’s what reality has, ‘somethings’.

“Above the physical level of existence, on the conceptual level, our realities differ.”

Absolutely not! All being are made of atoms. That’s it....nothing else. Nothing is made from spirits, souls and ghosts. Only our genetic makeup differs, which doesn’t concern reality. There is only ONE reality. It is impossible to argue otherwise.

“Heat and cold is real to me.”

You are using ordinary speech...which is fine....but please recognize it. Your use of ‘real’ in that sentence alludes to ‘experience’.....not the Scientific definition of real: physical presence.

You experience the EFFECT of heat. Heat is a verb....the faster motion of atoms. Cold is a verb too....atoms move slower. All effects are phenomena i.e. actions/verbs. Heat & cold are concepts....not objects. They are not real and don’t exist. They are only effects of atomic motion experienced by objects. This is basic High School Physics.

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Jonas James said previously: “Andre is determined to make this issue a subjective one. Can he not imagine a universe without life to perceive it?”

Andre says: “Jonas James, you can also not imagine a universe without someone to perceive it. Any universe you imagine, will be based on your current perceptions of the one you live in. So any 'imagined universes' you come up with, will have their basis in your current, subjective, experience. Why don't you get that?”

Andre I can imagine a universe (this universe) with no life IN IT. What you just did is a devious sleight of hand. What you just said is I cannot perceive without perceiving. You changed what I said to suit your argument – ie, YOU offered a straw man into this debate.

Nevertheless, I will let you off the hook and give you the benefit of the doubt accepting that you were unable to understand what I meant by “…a universe WITHOUT LIFE to perceive it”

So let me rephrase my query; can you imagine a universe 6 billion years ago that had no life on Earth?

Clearly you can imagine this planet 6 billion years ago without us to give our opinions on it. It is also clear that this shaped object WE call Earth is necessary for our presence in this location. We would not exist if we did not have an object to stand on in the first place. This object came before our opinions on it.

Our perceptions/opinions are irrelevant to the existing nature of objects.

Andre says: “I am NOT saying that the universe stops existing when there is no-one to perceive it. The point is that the 'unperceived universe' is impossible to KNOW.”

Obviously, we can only assume. But, what are our assumptions and beliefs based on? That’s right, existing objects – everything we can conceive of is traceable to an object (even the ridiculous stuff). The objects came first, and then we came along and started perceiving them.

Andre says: “Even knowing the objective universe, requires a subject.”

You actually admit that the objects of the universe are detached from our subjective soup in this statement.

Andre says: “The essence of the moon will still be there, meaning the matter that it is made of, but even saying that requires a subject, since the scope we exist on, meaning the meta-physical, is not the only scope there is. What if consciousness developed on the quantum level? What would that world 'look' like?”

Nothing! Given that quantum amounts to nothing (devoid of length, breadth, and height) it does not qualify as an object detached from our subjectivity. When our brains are extinct, the religion of quantum goes with it, but objects will still have shape.

Why don’t you get that?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

It looks like we might have to go there..... It seems important to you that existence be objective. Could you explain why?

I am trying really hard to find common ground here. I can see how you misunderstand me, but I cannot see a way of explaining this to you. Both of you.

I see the points you are making about existence and objects, but I cannot see the reason why. You are choosing to see it this way, but I don't understand what motivates this choice.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Andre, I think it's just that we define our terms objectively. So, 'exist' is defined objectively (i.e. to rule out subjects/observers/perception) so we can use it consistently i.e. in science, to explain reality.

Otherwise we're just overlaying our opinions/feelings onto 'reality', and we'd never get anywhere ('love' is reality to one person; 'god' is real to the next; energy exists for one but not the next; etc).

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“It seems important to you that existence be objective. Could you explain why?”

No, Andre....this is not about me. At the end of the day it is irrelevant what I or anybody else says. Reality just IS....and keeps on chugging away like it has for eternity. We are here now but gone forever later. Nobody will remember us or this planet after the Sun swallows it up, and even after the Sun is swallowed up by another star in this galaxy....and even after our galaxy collides with another. No aliens will ever intercept those Pioneer 10 & 11 plaques we sent in outer space because those probes will be swallowed by the stars. Alien races have evolved and died off for eternity in the Universe....and will continue to do so forever more. In fact, you can multitask all the super computers on this planet to count the largest number they can before our planet ceases, and you still will not even reach the tip of how many alien races have evolved and died off in the Universe.

Clearly, we are not in control of reality....we don’t hold the magic remote control in our hands.....and obviously no alien race ever has, nor will any other.

The problem is that YOU are suggesting that we MUST take a SUBJECTIVE approach to define reality, object, concept, exist. An approach which is dear in our heart & souls. Well, Andre.....you are offering nothing different than what humans have been doing for the past 10,000 years. Ergo, the thousands of Religions we have; each with their own personal subjective approach and view of reality. There is only ONE reality....not thousands!

So.....who is right....YOU or Benny Hinn? YOU or Einstein? YOU or the Levitating Guru in India? YOU or Deepak Chopra? Who do we believe? Should we assemble a committee to vote on the issue? Can we allow people to use money to buy as many votes as they want? Do we strongarm and taze people who don’t agree with us?

C’mon Andre....what the hell does this Circus Show have to do with reality?

Reality can never be asserted, decreed or eye-witnessed. Reality is DIVORCED from the human sensory system which has an extremely limited bandwidth. I mean, even frickin’ dogs for Christ’s sake have a better sensory system than us petty monkeys.

Obviously, we must use the most powerful organ nature has given us: OUR BRAIN!

Human intelligence has absolutely NO limitations. The atomic activity in our brains allow us to reason and understand anything via conceptual relations. I even wrote a detailed article on this:

https://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENC...

Only our SENSES have limitations....not our intelligence. Nope, not a single limit.

Clearly, it is CRITICAL THINKING and RATIONAL ANALYSIS which can only be used to reason what reality is. And we do this by removing the observer’s SENSORY SYSTEM from the process. Hence we obtain OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT definitions and explanations.

I hope you can appreciate that this is how the definitions of OBJECT & EXIST have been determined. And that’s why it is impossible to refute them. They have an obvious one-to-one mapping with reality.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Subjective: 1.Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects (A subject is one who perceives or is aware; an object is the thing perceived or the thing that the subject is aware of.)

The above is the definition I ascribe to. We are all subjects. When I say 'reality is subjective' I do not mean that everyone has their own reality. I mean that what we define as reality, depends on the perceptive ability of A subject. Not THE subject. We, as subjects, share the ability to see, hear and think, and it is this ability that defines what reality we are capable of experiencing.

Bats will have a different reality from ours because their sensory organs differ, so their reality is also subjective, meaning: their reality depends on the sensory organs of a subject. ANY subject of the group 'bats'. 'Bat reality' and 'human reality' is different.

Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“I mean that what we define as reality, depends on the perceptive ability of A subject. “

Ok, let’s have it your way. People talked to God, saw Jesus perform miracles, raise the dead, resurrect to Heaven, etc. So this is reality then, according to YOUR reasoning. The reality is that we were created by God and Jesus is our Savior. Why isn’t Jesus your savior, Andre? Why do you continue to deny the good Lord?

People with the same perceptive capabilities as you and me SAW all this stuff happen before their very eyes. Therefore this is reality and is proven!

And the funny thing is.....that nobody, not even Andre can refute this reality. But yet, Andre does not practise what he preaches. He ignores these 100% proven facts about God’s reality. He instead invents his own subjective views which are NOT proven and published like the Bible and its perceptive observations. Clearly Andre.....you are outvoted on this issue. Nobody will believe you. That’s why most people believe in the good Lord.

Andre, my friend.....just by merely applying your statements to a single example, it is obvious that you grossly contradict all you’ve said. And yet you continue to play this self-refuting position of yours.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

"Bats will have a different reality from ours because their sensory organs differ,"

I'm familiar with Thomas Nagel's article "What is it like to be a Bat," to which, I'm assuming, you're are refer here. However, Nagel's 'bat' is wholly irrelevant to what Fatfist is saying.

http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_b...

I don't think for a moment Nagel would deny the existence of the bat in question, nor would he deny the existence of human beings, simply because their consciousness differs, do you?

Nagel's topic is consciousness, or better put, the *activity* we define as 'consciousness,' and the so-called 'reductionist' attempt to break it down into constituent parts. If you read the article carefully, you'll see he reifies terms (ex: 'consciousness') unwittingly in order to make his point, just as do most academics.

This doesn't mean I find the article worthless. Quite to the contrary! I'd say it's and apt demonstration as to why arguments regarding 'reductionism,' both for and against, are based in the non-distinction, the *con-fusion* of object and concept, so prevalent now and in the past.

Obviously, a bat and a human are different beings, but difference between things is no argument in favor of different ontological 'existences' or 'realities.' There are no 'multiverses' nor are any needed for critical reason pertaining to different beings. There is only one reality/universe/existence of different beings. 'Reality/existence' is a completely fictional 'set' (concept) of every existing thing. It's a 'set' with no boundary, since we only use the term to connote EVERY THING.

Every thing is an assembly of 'parts,' which themselves are things. In fact, the very term 'thing' originally meant 'an assembly' in its native Germanic tongue. It was a social event, assembling all the big-wigs of every clan making up a particular tribe. In Iceland, for instance, the largest assembly was called the Al-thing.

What those who fluster themselves about 'reductionism,' don't understand is the difference between objects and concepts in language, particularly in distinguishing the two in rational discourse.

Every object, or thing, is an assembly. Since we cannot perceive the most minute matter, we can only hypothesize that such dinky chucks exist.

This, however, doesn't mean that matter can't assemble in innumerable combinations equally described as 'real' or 'existing.' Nor does it mean that every combination acts in the same manner. What it does mean, is that in order to exist it must be something, somewhere. Those are *ontological* ('es-' conceptualization) conditions of being ('bheue-' conceptualization) which meet in the term 'exist.'

@Fatfist

Yes, I'm writing a hub about the different senses of 'being' terms and 'exist(ence).'

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

@Andre.... it's not like I am inventing reality. All I ever said is that reality is comprised of real objects which mediate phenomena via surface-to-surface contact with other real objects. That is it. There’s nothing else in reality.....no ghosts no spirits. That's what it means to be 'real'...to 'exist'. Reality is not comprised of spirits or souls or incorporeal nonsense that Bill Allen asserts in my hub on concepts. And the reason why we have these irrational concepts is because nobody has ever bothered to define OBJECT & EXIST in objective non-contradictory terms. Not a single person in any Philosophy forum out there can ever define these 3 formidable terms: object, concept, exist. Why? Because they don’t wanna use their brains....it’s easier to read the dictionary. But dear God.....do they ever pound their chests, yell and whine that they KNOW 100% of what they speak. This is why when they come here they get the shock of their lives. It’s not Business-as-Usual here! Don’t expect to come here for an Atheist-Theist-type of exchange. The discussion here will be predicated on a one-to-one mapping of reality.

Andre.....let’s be serious....just look at Bill Allen’s flustered responses to me. He took a hammer and bashed his own face in. He considers himself a Professional Philosopher Extraordinaire with incredibly innate speaking abilities (as he boasted in the forums). Do you think this guy will come back for more? Do you think this guy actually has any rational counter to my response? Did you see how he was wavering in the forum? All he did was whine about how I insulted him, even tho he came here with blazing guns and f-words? It is folks like Bill Allen who believe in 0D spirits....and can’t control their anger when someone dares to challenge their Religious belief system.

@otium.....nice! That’s a good article to have around.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"Andre, my friend.....just by merely applying your statements to a single example, it is obvious that you grossly contradict all you’ve said. And yet you continue to play this self-refuting position of yours."

Maybe I am not making myself clear. All of us humans have the same sensory organs, so we experience reality in the same way. This is a subjective experience in the sense that a Subject is necessary to experience it. I am NOT talking about individual subjective experiences. This kind of of shared, verifiable, experience is what we usually call 'objective'. And when we say that an experience is 'objective', what we mean is that it will be experienced in the same way by different Subjects.

When you talk about perception, you need to assume a Subject that can experience it. No Subject = No experience.

We all experience reality in mostly the same way. 'Up' is in the same direction and we can agree about experiences such as 'hot', 'red' and 'hard'.

'Shape' is another one of these experiences. No experience = No shape. What YOU mean by 'shape', I see as 'substance'. Because objects have substance (matter), they have shape. An image of an object has shape but no substance, so the image is not an object.

Point being that 'shape', in the way it is traditionally used, is an experience, and therefore it needs a Subject to experience it. Substance does not need a Subject. Substance/Matter is experienced through shape, mass, texture etc. These experiences of substance IS NOT the substance, they are merely interpretations. Interpretations which depend on the sensory organs.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"I don't think for a moment Nagel would deny the existence of the bat in question, nor would he deny the existence of human beings, simply because their consciousness differs, do you?"

No, I don't. Why would you think that I would deny the existence of the bat?

"There are no 'multiverses' nor are any needed for critical reason pertaining to different beings. There is only one reality/universe/existence of different beings. 'Reality/existence' is a completely fictional 'set' (concept) of every existing thing. It's a 'set' with no boundary, since we only use the term to connote EVERY THING."

You are really starting to worry me here. I must really suck at expressing myself if the above is what you understood from my post.

I am talking about different internal/experienced realities. The bat experiences his reality way different from the way you do. His PHYSICAL reality. I am not talking about his individual reality. All bats need experience their physical realities differently from all humans, because of the difference in the organs they experience their reality with.

" What it does mean, is that in order to exist it must be something, somewhere. " - You are talking about physical 'things' right? You are defining existence in terms of physical objects. Which is fine, and which means that concepts do not 'exist'. It also makes sense then that you want to link concepts to physical things, saying that they are relationships between things, but that is simply not true. Concepts such as 'love' and 'justice' may originate from the physical world, but then they become independent as concepts.

Look at Fatfist's example of 'surfing'. Originally 'surfing' was associated with water, a board and a person. These days you can talk about Websurfing, and people will understand what you mean, and also understand that there is no water or a board. How is it possible to do this, if surfing need to stay linked to 'water', 'board' and 'person' to have meaning?

See, that is the problem when you want to use objects as your basis for meaning.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"Originally 'surfing' was associated with water, a board and a person. These days you can talk about Websurfing, and people will understand what you mean, and also understand that there is no water or a board. How is it possible to do this, if surfing need to stay linked to 'water', 'board' and 'person' to have meaning?"

This is exactly WHY you need strict definitions in science! First thing you do, before anything else; get your language straight. Else the rest fails before you've begun.

"See, that is the problem when you want to use objects as your basis for meaning."

Objects have no meaning! Objects just have shape. Concepts have meaning once they're defined.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

ScienceOfLife,

How does a concept get defined? How does a concept get its meaning?

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

"I must really suck at expressing myself if the above is what you understood from my post."

No need to be so hard on yourself. We all grew up learning that concepts were objects and metaphysics was where 'real reality' hangs out.

"I am talking about different internal/experienced realities. The bat experiences his reality way different from the way you do. His PHYSICAL reality."

I think I see where you're flustering yourself.

There is only one reality, but many types/kinds of experiences of reality. Simply put, different perceptions/experience is due to different physical composition, all of which are real. But, these different 'meanings' of reality ≠different realities. Meaning ≠ reality.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“All of us humans have the same sensory organs, so we experience reality in the same way. ....This kind of of shared, verifiable, experience is what we usually call 'objective'.”

No we don’t experience reality in the same way. Even tho we evolved the same sensory organs, every single person on this planet will have a different bandwidth and amplitude response curve on their sensory organs. The brain is also responsible in filling-in the gaps in our sensory system based on our personal experience and biases. No two people see or hear or smell or taste the same way. God did not make us. We are not perfect replicas of his prototype templates of Adam & Eve. All our input senses are subject to the individual; i.e. subjective.

“And when we say that an experience is 'objective', what we mean is that it will be experienced in the same way by different Subjects.”

No two people experience color or sound the same. All it takes is for one molecule to be off in the retina or cochlea and no two people have the same sensory response curve. Take a look at retina scans. No two are the same. That’s why it can be used as a fingerprint for security systems. And coupled with our biases, the brain fills-in the gaps so that we can sense what is not there. That’s why some people can SEE God, while others can’t. Remember, a portion of the sensory system is extrapolated by the brain in a subjective manner.

“We all experience reality in mostly the same way. 'Up' is in the same direction and we can agree about experiences such as 'hot', 'red' and 'hard'.”

No we don’t agree on experiences of hot, cold,....whatever.. I can’t walk barefoot on a bed of lit coals. No way.

“'Shape' is another one of these experiences. No experience = No shape. “

Again..it’s NOT! Shape is spatial separation. It’s a concept which relates what is inside the boundary to the environment. It is predicated on SEPARATION....not on experience.

“What YOU mean by 'shape', I see as 'substance'”

Substance: that which has shape (synonym: thing, object, etc.)

Shape is not a synonym for substance....not ‘a’ thing. Shape is a concept. ‘It’ cannot be experienced or SEEN or TOUCHed. ‘It’ can only be conceptualized.

“Because objects have substance (matter), they have shape. “

The objects of Geometry don’t have matter. But they are nonetheless objects. I mean, we are measuring the perimeter of SOMETHING, not nothing. And before a square has a perimeter, it must have shape. It is impossible to measure ‘a’ concept...no matter how much a Randian kicks or screams.

“An image of an object has shape but no substance”

Correct.

“so the image is not an object”

What the image represents is an object. I mean, the image is not blank. There is something illustrated in that image....be it a car, an elephant, etc. All these are objects we identify. Existence is a separate issue from objecthood.

“Point being that 'shape', in the way it is traditionally used, is an experience, and therefore it needs a Subject to experience it. “

If we care about tradition then we have to put a gun to your head and force you to pray to Jesus every night, take your communion and go to church 3 times a week. Reality pisses on the subjectivity of human tradition. Now, if humans built reality like they built cities...then yes, we have to respect their weird traditions; it’s only fair.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"No two people experience color or sound the same...Remember, a portion of the sensory system is extrapolated by the brain in a subjective manner."

Precisely why I can hear Monteverdi's _Vespers_ and consider it stunningly beautiful even while I have no deep feelings for Christianity.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"I think I see where you're flustering yourself.

There is only one reality, but many types/kinds of experiences of reality. Simply put, different perceptions/experience is due to different physical composition, all of which are real. But, these different 'meanings' of reality ≠different realities. Meaning ≠ reality."

Not feeling flustered. Frustrated maybe ....

What do you call 'reality'?

I think Different experience of reality = different reality. I need to experience reality for me to know it is there. I only have experience of reality.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"I need to experience reality for me to know it is there."

Trippy man.

So, when you experienced reality, did it suddenly all come into being at that exact moment? Or do you think you experienced it because, you know, reality was there before you came along?

Are you some kind of GOD?

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

"What do you call 'reality'?"

I've already answered this question above. 'Reality' is not a thing/object, but a concept:

"'Reality/existence' is a completely fictional 'set' (concept) of every existing thing. It's a 'set' with no boundary, since we only use the term to connote EVERY THING."

Let's make this easier. Take a smaller 'set' like 4 rocks. Because the rocks exist it doesn't follow that '4' also equally exists. '4' is a concept; the rocks are things which exist.

Hell, those who assert number 'exist' can't even use their own symbol 'prove' this assertion, which is made by 3 intersecting lines!!! (I'm half-joking, of course, four can also be represented by tally-marks, or 4 letters; f-o-u-r, etc.)

A. The concept 'exist' simply says 'this/that thing is some-where.' 'Where' is a relationship with other things. 'Place,' 'location,' must involve at least two things. There is no 'thing' unrelated to any other thing . Nor are there 'points' of 'pure location.' Both of these latter notions are pure hoooey!

B. The concept 'existence' (a synonym for 'reality') is a further generalization, a further rationalization, built upon 'exist.' It's the meta-concept, the 'set' of every located thing. All it's saying is that to be somewhere is the general condition for every thing existing. There are no exceptions. "All things are always relating to all other things. There are no other possibilities."

To say the bat exists, is simply saying that the bat is somewhere (a.), which is the condition of every other thing/object which exists (b.).

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"No we don’t experience reality in the same way." - Yes, we do. It is true that it is not excatly the same. It is similar enough to allow for a shared experience though. If your hot was my cold, then one of us would have problems ......

"Shape is spatial separation. It’s a concept which relates what is inside the boundary to the environment. It is predicated on SEPARATION....not on experience."

I think shape represents spacial seperation. Why is 'shape' not the experience of the seperation?

"Shape is not a synonym for substance....not ‘a’ thing. Shape is a concept. ‘It’ cannot be experienced or SEEN or TOUCHed. ‘It’ can only be conceptualized."

I agree that shape is not substance, but it can be seen.

"What the image represents is an object."

Exactly. The image REPRESENTS and object but it isn't the object it represents.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

ScienceOfLife

Shut yourself in one of those sensory deprivation tanks for a day or so, and then tell me all about reality.

No experience = No reality

You ALWAYS function from the perspective of a Subject. If there is no sensation, then there IS nothing. You believe there is, but you cannot KNOW there is.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

"Yes, we do. It is true that it is not excatly the same. It is similar enough"

So, is 'similar' the same as 'same' or similar to 'same?'

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"'Reality/existence' is a completely fictional 'set' (concept) of every existing thing." - Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

"So, is 'similar' the same as 'same' or similar to 'same?"

It depends on how big a twat you are trying to be.

How would you relate your subjective experience to someone elses subjective experience if it wasn't similar enough to allow for a comparison?

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

"Shut yourself in one of those sensory deprivation tanks for a day or so, and then tell me all about reality...If there is no sensation, then there IS nothing."

So, there's no sensory deprivation tank once you get in it? Or does the tank cease to exist once you're in 'it' for a day. Sh*t, the sun would also cease to exist and 'day' would then be meaningless. So, once you get in, you better prepare for Eternity 'inside' the 'non-tank.'

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“ It is similar enough to allow for a shared experience though.”

Well, neither me or you can experience the Lord. But the great majority do....they can feel Him....blah blah and all that jazz. Obviously something must be wrong with our experiences because we are both outvoted on this issue of “shared experience”. We are completely out of the loop. Obviously our “experience” is completely fu**ed up.

Experience is a fudgy term which is predicated on interpretation. The brain does quite a bit of interpreting of its sensory inputs. Such a combination of limited sensory bandwidth + varying sensory amplitude + brain interpretation of inputs = gross subjectivity. There are many examples of this failure, one of which is the black hole. The human ape observes a dark region (lack of stars) in space thru his telescope and automatically asserts he saw ‘a’ black hole, which he so conveniently calls an OBJECT. This object is now purported to swallow light, astronauts & clocks. This is clearly IMPOSSIBLE. Nobody can see ‘a’ hole.....nobody can see ‘the’ hole in the donut. What you see is the surrounding object....not ‘the’ hole, which is a concept. Holes can only be conceptualized....never ever ever ever SEEN.

The bottom line is: the sensory system is fallible, as humanity has demonstrated over the past 10,000 years. It’s about time we started to use our brains for critical thinking....rather than subjectively interpreting! The circus show of SUBJECTIVITY has officially come to an end.

“ Why is 'shape' not the experience of the seperation?”

Because you cannot “experience” (see/touch) ‘a’ concept. Concepts are not amenable to sensory input. You can only experience a ball by seeing/touching it. Only objects can be experienced. You can only CONCEPTUALIZE the shape of a ball via sensory analysis of its surface RELATIVE to its environment. Objects are the bounty of our environment. Thus Mother Nature only made us with the capability to sense/experience a limited portion of this bounty which exists. She didn’t make us to sense/experience some relations (concepts) that we invent (i.e. conceive), and which obviously don’t exist.

“I agree that shape is not substance, but it can be seen.”

No ‘it’ can’t...because shape is not an ‘it’ (i.e. something). See above ^^^^

“The image REPRESENTS and object but it isn't the object it represents.”

It doesn’t HAVE to be because whether the object represented by the image actually exists or not is completely IRRELEVANT to whether it is an object. Existence is separate from objecthood! This is what you don’t understand. Exist is not a synonym for ‘object’. The object represented in the image may be a dinosaur. Dinosaurs are objects.....they are SOMETHING, not ‘nothing’ just because they don’t exist. Ask any child if a dinosaur is ‘something’. They will immediately say YES even though the dino is not right in front them.

Children get this stuff rather easily. Any child understands the difference between an object and a concept. It is AFTER they are subjected to all the brainwashing of the stupid educational system (which was invented by Priests) when they start believing in Gods, ghosts, spirits, souls, good, evil, moral, time, energy, mass, forces, fields, black holes, waves, 0D particles, incorporeal objects, etc.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"So, there's no sensory deprivation tank once you get in it? Or does the tank cease to exist once you're in 'it' for a day. Sh*t, the sun would also cease to exist and 'day' would then be meaningless. So, once you get in, you better prepare for Eternity 'inside' the 'non-tank.'"

Man, this is not rocket science. Everything you mention above is a result of your mind. Your mind tells you you are in a tank, but your body is freaking out because the whole world just disappeared.

Like you said, we 'fill in the blanks'. Reality is a concept. Without your mind, it simply doesn't exist ........ FROM THE SUBJECT's PERSPECTIVE. And since the Subjective perspective is all we have to go on, reality depends on it.

I am not saying that everything disappears every time someone dies, but for that poor guy, EVERYHING does disappear. The same will happen for you when you kick the bucket.

This is what I mean when I say reality/existence is subjective.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"Because you cannot “experience” (see/touch) ‘a’ concept."

And yet, there is an experience that relates to the concept 'shape'. Just as there is an experience that relates to the concept 'apple'. You are right though, one cannot experience objects but through concepts.

"Dinosaurs are objects.....they are SOMETHING, not ‘nothing’ just because they don’t exist. Ask any child if a dinosaur is ‘something’. They will immediately say YES even though the dino is not right in front them."

Dinosaurs are not objects. They are concepts that exist without a material aspect. Dinosaurs only exist as concepts. Concepts are not nothing just because they are not objects.

Of course children will say that a dinosaur is something. 'Something' here is a synonym for 'exist', which simply means 'not nothing'.

You believe in the Religion of Object. This is your religion. Mine is not that clearly defined, but I also believe. They only way NOT to believe, is not to think.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

@Andre

"Your mind tells you you are in a tank, but your body is freaking out because the whole world just disappeared."

So, now 'mind' is a thing which speaks to my body or _____? 'Mind' is a conceptual term for an *activity.*

"Reality is a concept. Without your mind, it simply doesn't exist"

Yes, the TERM 'reality' is, like every word, a concept not an object, but, that does not mean that every real thing, every object which exists, the totality of which is the meaning of this particular concept, ceases to exist because 'I' can no longer use the word.

Because I cease looking at the rocks I've grouped together as '4,' doesn't mean those rock cease existing! Likewise, because I can no longer say the word 'existence' after death doesn't mean that all the things to which it refers to cease existing. Reality doesn't care what we call it.

Lastly, there is no such thing as 'I,' which is a *concept.* The objects/things assembled here and now, typing this post, will continue to exist after this particular assembly breaks down and eternally become other assemblies/things/objects.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“And yet, there is an experience that relates to the concept 'shape'. Just as there is an experience that relates to the concept 'apple'.”

No, you are going out in the middle of nowhere with those statements. Experience only relates to objects....not shape...nothing else. Concepts are conceived via atomic motion in the brain where a cognitive relation is established between the border which separates the inside and outside of a referent....say, the word ‘apple’. If the brain can conceive of such separation, then ‘apple’ is placed in the category of objects. If not, then in the category of concepts.

“Dinosaurs are not objects. They are concepts that exist without a material aspect.”

Well, it is extremely easy to TEST your above statement. Please define ‘exist’ so that this formidable term can be used for the existence of concepts, objects, dinosaurs, Aristotle, the Moon, this chair, etc.

“'Something' here is a synonym for 'exist'”

Ha ha....nice try. Some THING is an object.....not a synonym for ‘exist’. There is not a single dictionary (as you like for authority) on the planet which has exist as synonym with thing. So you cannot even support your position. You are being intentionally irrational now because you have no further arguments. Bill Allen did the same in my other hub.

“Mine is not that clearly defined,”

That’s why you are chasing your tail in circles and contradicting everything you say.

“ but I also believe.”

Well, that’s why you have a Religion. You only believe....you cannot define or explain anything. Face it, you are not cut out for this line of work. Physics is not your forte. Perhaps Bill Allen or that expert Physicist Joegen from Malaysia can come here and help you out. I invited both of them, but they are scared. Any wonder why?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Remember, Andre....your friend Bill Allen already agreed that ....exist/real: that which has PHYSICAL PRESENCE.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"'Mind' is a conceptual term for an *activity.*"

So? Does it change anyhting? I can still say "Your mind informs you that you are in a tank."

"Yes, the TERM 'reality' is, like every word, a concept not an object, but, that does not mean that every real thing, every object which exists, the totality of which is the meaning of this particular concept, ceases to exist because 'I' can no longer use the word."

Yes. I agree. How many times do I have to say this, explicitly, before you are going to stop accusing me of claiming that the physical world stops existing? How many times do I have to repeat that I am talking from the perspective of the Subject who experiences and not this imaginary 'super-objective' perspective that you and Fatfist seem to believe in?

"Lastly, there is no such thing as 'I,' which is a *concept.* The objects/things assembled here and now, typing this post, will continue to exist after this particular assembly breaks down and eternally become other assemblies/things/objects."

You lost me here. The 'I' exists as a concept, or does not exist as a concept? Are you saying that the matter that you consist of, is the only parts that make you 'You'? That 'YOU' are a result of chemical reactions and atomic interactions? Am I talking to a determinist?

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Concepts don't exist, you fool! How many times?!

AMAZING.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

After all his contradictory ramblings, Andre has finally admitted that he has a RELIGION. Geee...ya think?

Andre only came here to tell us that he BELIEVES all that his Priest told him in the confession box. He cannot define or explain anything. He doesn’t even know if he exists.

1) Andre: “Mine [Religion] is not that clearly defined, but I also believe.”

2) Coupled with the fact that Andre is pulling sleights-of-hand by using words which he cannot define: object, concept, exist......he really has NO argument against this article. You cannot talk about ‘something’ which you cannot DEFINE, Andre. Nor can you talk about “properties” of objects when you cannot even tell the audience what an ‘object’ is. Nor can you talk about YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of objects when you cannot define ‘object’.

3) Andre, you cannot talk about “klamokaptica” when you cannot even tell the audience what “klamokaptica” means, got it?

4) Andre cannot even tell us whether he exists or not.

5) Even all the Kindergarten children can educate Andre on the difference between object & concept. So he is certainly out-voted on this issue....and by none other than, kids!

6) Even your best friend, Bill Allen, doesn’t agree with you. He clearly stated that what exists has PHYSICAL PRESENCE, and only a CULT MIND (i.e. like Andre) would believe that concepts exist.

You are officially FINISHED, Andre!

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre: "So? Does it change anyhting? I can still say "Your mind informs you that you are in a tank."

'Mind' is an interpretation. 'Mind' is a conceptualized set ofactivities/processess, abstracted, decontextualized, from a host of other active things. It's circular abstraction based partly on the very same processes and relations it names, plus a host of others lying-ly left out. How else can 'mind' be separated from 'body?'

Andre: "Yes. I agree. How many times do I have to say this, explicitly, before you are going to stop accusing me of claiming that the physical world stops existing? How many times do I have to repeat that I am talking from the perspective of the Subject who experiences and not this imaginary 'super-objective' perspective that you and Fatfist seem to believe in?"

This has nothing to do with a belief, but a capability of nearly every human ape. Look. Maybe we can understand one another better if I first ask you a question at this point: Is perception subjective or objective? How you answer this question will, I think, allow me to answer you more clearly.

Andre: "You lost me here. The 'I' exists as a concept, or does not exist as a concept? Are you saying that the matter that you consist of, is the only parts that make you 'You'? That 'YOU' are a result of chemical reactions and atomic interactions? Am I talking to a determinist?"

The 'free-will' vs. 'determinism' debate is the hoax of self-presumed 'holy men.' It is based on the faith that one already understands the capabilities of every possible combination matter has been, is, and may eventually become, in this eternal universe.

If you listen to the Religionists, they will always use 'physical existence' in a pejoritive, or at least, a denigrated, way ('Is *this* all there is? There *must* be more to it than *this*!). They do this in favor of 'high ideals,' whether of God or Mathematics (and it's worth noting that most early Math Fizzycysts were extremely pious). Reality simply isn't sufficient enough for such tastes, greedy for ever more certainty. I seek to utterly abandon their resentful false dichotomies and not even speak of them if I can help it. But, Religionists demand the general consent, by force if necessary, of their vague 'objects' in order to give their notions the appearance of existence.

Anyway. I'd really appreciate you answering my question pertaining to perception above. All of this may have been a case of simply speaking past one another...

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

" Is perception subjective or objective?"

Perception assumes a subject. This means that you need be a subject to perceive. This does not mean that perception is subjective in the sense that each person's perceptions are absolutely unique. What I mean, is that perception needs to be standardized to be shared. If perception was truely subjective, communication would be impossible.

So, perception is subjective in the sense that a Subject is necessary to perceive, BUT it is not subjective in the sense that it is all that different. Meaning, that it is standardized.

Objectivity is a myth. It does not exist. What you are talking about when you call something 'objective' is the effect of standardized, subjective, perception.

Take Fatfist's imaginary universe with only one object existing in it. The very terms he uses to describe this universe has arisen from a subject's consciousness. The concepts 'universe', 'object', 'one' and 'exist' are all concepts that came about through a subjective consciousness, interacting with the world.

He assumes objects exist, because of his sensory experience of objects, but he conveniently forgets that on the atomic level, there are no objects. There are only relationships between atoms. It is still a mystery where exatly in this relationship, the 'object' comes into being.

It is true that we do not need this kind of understanding to function in Fatfist's world of objects and motion, but that does not mean that these concepts do not exist.

Fatfist keeps ignoring my assertion that an apple is a concept as well as an object. The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive, as he claims they are.

He does not realize that the only reason he can claim them to be mutually exclusive, is because HE chooses to claim them to be mutually exclusive.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

I guess you are breaking up with me then? Oh well, I guess that's it then ... Cheers, and thanx for all the fish ....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Fatfist keeps ignoring my assertion that an apple is a concept as well as an object. “

Either you cannot read, or just like your friends in the philosophy forums, you cannot understand what you say.

All you have to do, Andre.....is define ‘object’ and ‘concept’ so that when we plug the word “apple” into your definitions they don’t contradict themselves. You cannot do that. All you have admitted to here is that YOU have a Religion....that’s it.

You really have nothing but YOUR Religion to offer to these discussions. But the funny thing is that Christianity is more coherent than your Religion. You have buried yourself. Don’t blame us.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

Who are you talking to? I am not here, remember. I don't exist.

Luckily for you it doensn't really matter what you believe ....

This is just so mind-numbing ......

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre: "I don't exist"

Huh? What the hell do you mean by 'exist'???

Here you go, fill in the blanks:

exist:_________________

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

I mean I am just a concept. The 'I' that I am, is a conceptual derivation.

I mean this apple I am not holding, doesn't exist either. And not because I am not holding it.

This apple doesn't exist, because without the 'apple', this object just IS. So is the moon and anything else you care to name.

Exist: that which IS. More than just physical objects. Concepts, dreams, memories, you name it. It responds .....

You fail to explain as well. You don't understand your own gospel either. But you are not honest enought o admit it.

That's OK. No skin off my back ..... Peace.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre-

You seem interested enough to stick around, so I'm going to try another approach.

OK...

Andre: "Perception assumes a subject. This means that you need be a subject to perceive. This does not mean that perception is subjective in the sense that each person's perceptions are absolutely unique. What I mean, is that perception needs to be standardized to be shared. If perception was truely subjective, communication would be impossible."

For many years now I've been wary of the 'subject/object' dichotomy, which may come as a surprise to you. The reason I asked you about perception is that there's no good reason to say it's either 'subjective' or 'objective.' Many, however, believe perception is most definitely subjective, and any talk of perspective = subjective in their pea-brains .

First and foremost, perception is an active relationship, a verb: 'perceiving, to perceive.' To some extent I understand why you'd say perception assumes a subject, since perception is, prima facia, an activity which can't coherently be conceived without either 'subject' or 'object.' I've stated so much elsewhere on Fatfist's HubPage.

This conception, however, is context-dependent and may be a bit misleading, particularly if we come to believe in it without question. If we change our perspective a bit, the issue also changes; and greatly changes at that!

We are in an interesting position when we are asked to perceive our own bodies. How do we do this without circularity? 'We' must perceive our body through the very same senses we perceive everything else! There's no other way! Yet, even while we cognitively *interpret* this body differently than any other body, it's a body no less for it.

Is 'what' we perceived, then, objective or subjective? Neither. It can't be. 'Subjectivity' is simply one conceptual pole (the other being 'objectivity') within the concept 'perception,' used here as a meta- concept.

Put your hands together palm-to-palm. Which palm is 'touching' the other palm? Which palm-feeling is subjective? Which is the object being touched? We can only accomplish such a oppositional relationship through a lie far too subtle for ham-fists.

Sure, we are capable of using the S/O dichotomy in a context-dependent manner. But we have a strong tendency to come and believe in it as the very make-up of the whole Universe; ususally expressed a 'Divine Command" or "A Universal Law." This is the vanity of taking one's interpretation and equating it with all existence. Arrogance.

Perceiving always means perceiving something. We are a body which perceives (only bodies can act). Perception is more a TROPICAL RELATIONSHIP. We’ve all grown up thinking that every binary pair is of warring tribes, God vs. Statan (the Adversary), ‘Mind’ vs. ‘Body,’ 'Spirit vs. Matter,' etc. Yet, years aren’t conceived as Summer vs. Winter; or ‘events’ conceivable as ‘Beginning’ vs. ‘The End.’ OPPOSITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, indeed have their contexts, but Good Lord, they in no way make up THE context!

We can in no way rationally leap from the fact that we perceive things, to the conclusion that every thing depends upon our perception to exist, to be real. We can only say that our perception ceases when this 'assemblage,' our body, is no more.

Fatfist comes across to me in the manner of strict context-dependence. The predominant topic of his hubs are, after all, physics. Fatfist has peppered references throughout his hubs to our sense perception, our requirement to conceive our surroundings, which is a matter of interpretation, and so on.

Like in the case of the warring tribes above, most people have grown up believing that 'conception' and 'interpretation' are voluntary, 'conscious,' willful, activities without realizing the idiocy of this position.

Fatfist, like everyone else, can’t be 100%, USDA certified, and mother-approved, 'objective.' But, the point I take away from his approach is an attempt to make as few errors as possible in explaining (that is, conceptually 'make flat, make level') existence in a less anthropomorphic way than others have.

In order to accomplish this, the language has to be carefully selected so as to be as unambiguous it can, and then used consistently. This necessarily entails a conceptual shift as far as we’re able toward the ‘object’ pole of perception , and the use of a parsimonious language as free from reification as is attainable.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre: “Exist: that which IS.”

Lol...circular rhetoric again.

Exist: is

Is: exist

A horse is a horse .....of course of course!

You’ve said NOTHING, Andre. So here you go again....

Exist: __________________

"I am just a concept"

You've said nothing until you can define ‘concept’. Here you go...

concept:______________

"this object"

Oh, whatdaya mean by 'object'??

object:___________

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre-

Define 'I.'

"I mean this apple I am not holding, doesn't exist either. And not because I am not holding it."

You've already implied that this 'I' is either more than just 'a result of chemical reactions and atomic interactions,' or somehow not dependent on them. Yet, 'it' can hold an apple?

So, are you telling us you understand all possible 'atomic interactions' in an eternal universe?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre: “What I mean, is that perception needs to be standardized to be shared.”

Otium: “Fatfist, like everyone else, can’t be 100%, USDA certified, and mother-approved, 'objective.' “

What is standardized, certified and approved... stems only from the consensus of OPINION from a committee of human apes. Standards are the Hallmark of Religion and have nothing to do with reality. Reality cannot be ISO 9002 standardized, neither can one’s subjective experiences. Otherwise there would be only one Religion, not thousands. Reality pisses on consensus of opinion.

In Science, what we mean by OBJECTIVE is observer-independent. The observer is not invoked in our definitions and in our rational explanations of natural events. Mother Nature did just fine without us....and will be ok after we are gone.

Eye-witness testimony is barred from explanations. Eye-witness testimony is only a description...i.e. “I saw God”....or...”I saw a Black Hole”. These statements are easily analyzed as either rational or irrational in the Theory stage. Any statement of personal experience is subjective to the individual only. Science has nothing to do with personal experiences. Maybe YOU saw 'a' Black Hole.....but I sure as hell did not see 'it'. So who is right? Who do we believe? Neither!!! We analyse these claims critically using the Scientific Method. Period! There is no other method.

If Andre can contradict any of the definitions he doesn’t like, he is welcome to. But other than that, he has no basis for complaining.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Fatfist: "What is standardized, certified and approved..."

I was speaking to Andre's love of dictionaries of modern English usage seemingly without realizing usage changes. Jesus, we just need to look at the word 'lust,' as an example.

"In Science, what we mean by OBJECTIVE is observer-independent."

And I understand where you're going in terms of 'observer-independent.' It's just that the term 'object' has ALWAYS and most DEFINITELY invoked observers from its very inception:

Obicio- "I throw, or hurl, against". Extended usage: "I throw or put to, towards, in front of or before, hold out, offer, present; expose."

From 'ob-' toward' + iacio 'throw, hurl,'; where 'jet' finds its root.

Obviously, something must have been thrown, by something doing the throwing, but the term itself has never been as specific on this as you. Like I said above, language changes...

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Otium,

“Andre's love of dictionaries of modern English usage without realizing usage changes.”

No doubt, words have multiple contexts in practically all languages. But what most don’t realize is that a critical presentation on reality cannot use all the contexts of ‘object’ and ‘shape’. This would be an unethical attempt to cover all our bases for argumentation, thus ensuring that nobody can contradict our proposal. In Popperian terms this is called: rendering your 'theory' unfalsifiable. And this is what Math Fizzicysts do when they ask you WHAT would make your Theory falsifiable? They are compiling a list of BIASED statements which cannot be refuted in accordance with their specific Theory. This is intellectual dishonesty. And that’s what theists do. E.g. What is God? God is love, happiness, incorporeal, spirit, a man, he is everything, energy, force, etc. No wonder nobody can contradict God. He is untouchable!

“It's just that the term 'object' has ALWAYS and most DEFINITELY invoked observers from its very inception”

Of course, it had to, just like all terms. That was then. This is why it was so easy for Religion to flourish on this planet. Not a single Philosopher has ever defined any of his key terms objectively. But we have progressed....and this is where Andre shuts his eyes and ears. He will hear none of it. Andre doesn’t like progress. He wants to work under the same 3000 year-old paradigm of touching, seeing, feeling good inside and proving.

“something must have been thrown, by something doing the throwing”

Well, here we go. If an object is that which I can experience, then a second object has been invoked (i.e. the observer). So the question remains: What is an object?

Andre doesn’t like the “Single Object Universe” because it destroys all Religions. Only the Single Object Universe will tell you in no ambiguous terms what an object is. So let’s consider the Earth. People claim it’s an object because we can experience it. But this is saying nothing. We still don’t understand what an object is. So just place the Earth in the Single Object Universe with nobody experiencing it. Now Andre is forced to use his BRAIN instead of his eyes and hands to tell us what an object is. And the only thing Andre can ever say is: an object has shape. There is nothing else that can be said about the Earth in such an objective context.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"Well, here we go. If an object is that which I can experience, then a second object has been invoked (i.e. the observer). What is an object?"

And this is what loses most people. The term was coined by those who couldn't stand the very thought of existing on par with everything else in terms of explanation. This has hardly changed over the centuries, to be sure. The formula goes something like this: It would be horrible if I were like a stone, an tick, or spider in any way, therefore I'm not. I'm more than that.

The 'something throwing' was thought of as 'I'm throwing' due to an evaluation of ourselves within a moral rule-book WE wrote! We believe that existence has granted us special favor simply because we ourselves do.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Irony being that Popper developed many of his ideas about methodology and falsification while at the same time loving it up with the loonie mathematicians, in awe at the brilliance of their ghost-like particles and warped space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_experiment

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

SOL-

"in awe at the brilliance of their ghost-like particles and warped space."

Oh, it doesn't surprise me a bit. Human apes esteem themselves like no other being can. The more imaginary 'accomplishment' the lower our jaw drops in self-reverence...

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"In Science, what we mean by OBJECTIVE is observer-independent. The observer is not invoked in our definitions and in our rational explanations of natural events. Mother Nature did just fine without us....and will be ok after we are gone."

Except that it is the Observer invoking the definitions. According to the Observer's experience of the world. Using the Observer's mode of perception.

I am not saying that the Existence of objects are observer-dependent. And this is what you don't seem to understand. I am saying that your Perception of objects is observer-dependent.

Why can you not make this distinction?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Except that it is the Observer invoking the definitions. “

Duh....ya think???

Words are made to be USED by people. Please go to Junior Kindergarten so you can learn this.

In science, the key terms of a theory are defined without invoking any observers WITHIN the definition.

Understand the diff?

“Definitions..... Using the Observer's mode of perception.”

Nope! Not even close! Definitions are CONCEPTUAL, not sensory-based. Perceptions are sensory-system dependent. Do you understand this much?

“I am saying that your Perception of objects is observer-dependent.”

Indeed it is. If I see an object in the forest and call it God, this is MY personal subjective opinion. You may call it Big Foot....again your opinion. Your neighbor may call it a tree....again their opinion.

So?????

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

You remind me of a deaf pianist playing a song on an out-of-tune piano ..... You're hitting the right keys but you simply can't tell what it sounds like. ..... The only person 'hearing' the tune, is you.

I am still trying to figure out whether you are purposefully misunderstanding everything I say, or whether you are really this daft.

Why don't you ask Otium to translate for you. He seems to have a clue.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

We seem to be thinking along the same lines. Not exactly, but that will take a longer post to address.

"We can in no way rationally leap from the fact that we perceive things, to the conclusion that every thing depends upon our perception to exist, to be real."

Who is saying that? It sure as hell ain't me. I AM saying that for anything to be real, for you, the always-present observer, it need to be perceived. Reality is experienced by the Observer. My claim is that there is no distinction to be drawn between an objective reality and a subjective reality. And by 'subjective reality' I don't mean 'believe anything you want to be real', as Fatfist seems to think I do. I am talking about our shared reality. The one we actually agree on. The physical one. Where objects exist. The one we call 'objective reality'. The one that Fatfist claims is the ONLY reality.

"You've already implied that this 'I' is either more than just 'a result of chemical reactions and atomic interactions,' or somehow not dependent on them. Yet, 'it' can hold an apple?"

Don't be obtuse. You have already proven yourself more sophisticated than this kind of statement.

Yes, the 'I' is 'more' than the parts that make it, in the same way a concept is 'more' than the objects that it refers to. That is because the 'I' IS a concept. Concepts are abstracted from reality. The 'thing' the concept 'apple' points to, is only one instance/realization of that concept.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

"The one we call 'objective reality'. The one that Fatfist claims is the ONLY reality."

Utter nonsense. Subjective reality and objective reality are bullshit terms invented by theists and atheists. Both of these morons are divorced from reality so they need to invent these BS terms to save their respective Religions.

There is only REALITY. Repeat after me: R E A L I T Y.

It is up to humans to critically reason reality and describe it.

a) If they describe it by invoking an observer, then their descriptions are subjective.

b) If they describe it without invoking an observer and their definitions & theories cannot be contradicted, then they are objective!

Obviously Andre prefers option (a).

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

“Don't be obtuse. You have already proven yourself more sophisticated than this kind of statement.”

Have I, now? Have we returned to name-calling, Andre?

“Yes, the 'I' is 'more' than the parts that make it, in the same way a concept is 'more' than the objects that it refers to. That is because the 'I' IS a concept.”

So, a concept cannot hold apples. Or read Fatfist’s posts and respond to them, etc. Only a body can hold another body.

“Concepts are abstracted from reality. “

Indeed, they are, but not by other concepts. Concepts are activities, themselves only possible through a host of ‘atomic interations.’ Only objects can act. A concept cannot conceptualize, only a living body can do so. If ‘I’ is a concept, it cannot exist, since ‘exist’ simply means something, somewhere. If you have another definition of 'exist/real' please share it with us.

“The 'thing' the concept 'apple' points to, is only one instance/realization of that concept.”

I think I understand what you’re trying to say. In an early unpublished essay Nietzsche said much the same thing:

‘Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects.’ (‘On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense’)

I don’t think Fatfist, you, or I would see anything wrong with this.

However, I think what you’re chimping-out about is exactly the equation of unequal *concepts.* To say ‘I’ and to say ‘apple’ are equal only in the sense that they are words, verbalized concepts. But, what they *refer to* is definitely unequal. ‘Apple’ is exactly like Nietzsche’s leaf above. ‘I/ego’ on the other is not, for ‘it’ can only be a hotch-potch, literally a CON-FUSION, of a host of actually existing things, but also other concepts.

There is only one reality, whether we agree on it or not. After all, many Theists and philosophers don’t ‘agree’ at all, that’s what makes them theists and moral-metaphysicians (ex: Math Fizzycysts).

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"So, a concept cannot hold apples. Or read Fatfist’s posts and respond to them, etc. Only a body can hold another body."

Yes, I am glad that we are clear a body is a physical object. That reminds me, I found the statement about the 'I' contemplating its own body a little strange. The 'I' is not a physical thing, whereas the body is. That's why we say "I HAVE a body' and not "I AM a body'. The 'I' is closely linked to the body, and they influence each other, but the one IS not the other. The 'I' is a beautifully pure concept. It is abstracted from the physical processes that make up the body, and the brain, as well as a host of other concepts, such as 'gender' and 'cultural bias', but the 'I' isn't a physical thing.

"Only objects can act." - What does that mean? As far as I know, objects don't act.

" If ‘I’ is a concept, it cannot exist, since ‘exist’ simply means something, somewhere."

ONLY if you subscribe to the belief that ONLY physical objects exist.

"‘I/ego’ on the other is not, for ‘it’ can only be a hotch-potch, literally a CON-FUSION, of a host of actually existing things, but also other concepts."

So what? It is what it is. No-one ever said the 'Self/I' is simple. Why does it have to be?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

I wanted to show you that your definition is also circular, especially the way you apply it.

Your definition is: Object = that which has shape.

I made the point that, if you reverse the definition (That which has shape = object.) then it should also make sense.

I used the example of a shadow, and an image on your TV.

That, which has shape = Object.

A shadow, which has shape = Object.

'That' is used as a general determiner and it points to 'anything', even 'things' that are not objects. (A unicorn is also a 'thing'.)

You said that a shadow is not an object, because it cannot stand on its own, divorced from other objects, so, you cannot refer to a shadow as a 'that', because THAT refers to an object.

Which means that your definition actually looks like this:

That (which must be an object and therefore have shape) which has shape = Object

This is NOT sophistry. THIS is actually what you are saying. IF you have the balls to remain intellectually honest.

If the above was not the case, then you should be able to put ANYTHING, which are not really things at all, in the place of THAT.

Then I should be able to say: A shadow, which has shape = Object. You now this is nonsense though, so you need to add your disclaimer that shadows are NOT objects, because they don't actually exist becasue they cannot exist in a universe with only one object.

Do you see the circle here?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"There is only REALITY. Repeat after me: R E A L I T Y."

Aaaaah, so everything that IS, IS REALITY? My goodness, isn't that exactly what I said? If there is only reality, then why is there any confusion here? What exactly are we talking about?

I want to hear what you have to say about my claim that there is no such thing as objectivity.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“That which has shape = object”

You are very desperate and that’s why you are not making sense. Mathematics is a tautology that has absolutely nothing to do with linguistics. Keep chasing ghosts!

‘a’ shadow??????? Please illustrate ‘a’ shadow all on its own without another object being present to mediate the EFFECT we call shadow. I will PayPal you \$10,000 if you can do that.

LOL!!

“you cannot refer to a shadow as a 'that', because THAT refers to an object.”

Nice try but your act is very old. The audience already knows “that” is used as a placeholder to form the sentence. The user of the definition will substitute any word which they wish to test if it resolves to an object. Ha ha!

You need to enroll in Grammar School to learn that sentences not only have syntax, but their second stage of resolution is context. Can your mom & dad afford to send you?

“Do you see the circle here?”

Yes, it’s quite funny. Keep chasing your tail in the circles you create. The act of an extremely desperate individual.

“there is no such thing as objectivity”

Duh....ya think?

The day when ‘objectivity’ surreptitiously acquires shape, morphs into an object and whacks you over the head.... is the day when you’ve swallowed 10 kilograms of cocaine.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Here Andre:

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

You've never read this article before. It will teach you about language what you've never learned in your whole life at your Church. Specifically....the difference between 'syntax' and 'context'. Very crucial to know this stuff so you don't embarrass yourself in public with ignorant statements like:

"Ummm...duh...I thought 'that' represents an object in sentences. Fatfist is such a tool... ahyuck, ahyuck, LOL!"

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

You are the one who is getting desperate.

An image of an elephant on my TV has shape = The image of an elephant is an object

A cloud has shape = A cloud is an object

See?

"Please illustrate ‘a’ shadow all on its own without another object being present to mediate the EFFECT we call shadow."

Where is this part of your definition? Why does a shadow have to be all on its own? The shadow, where it is cast against the wall, has shape. That is your only criteria for 'THAT' to be an object.

Since 'That' is only a place holder, you cannot come and demand that whatever I put in the place of 'That' be able to stand on its own in a universe with no other objects ....

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre: "That reminds me, I found the statement about the 'I' contemplating its own body a little strange. The 'I' is not a physical thing, whereas the body is. "

Where did I say "the 'I' contemplating its own body?" Are you putting words in my mouth now?

In the very least, you are mistaking your own interpretation of what I said to be what I said. You should understand by now I'm at least half-way careful in how I use my language...

"'That's why we say "I HAVE a body' and not "I AM a body'"

So what? It's a figure of speech. You're simply creating a scarecrow to punch in the cornfield out back to prove how tough you are in front of your girlfriend...But, it's irrelevant to what I actually said, Andre.

'...but the 'I' isn't a physical thing."

WTF??? I EXPLICITLY stated 'I' is a concept under no uncertain terms and more than once!!!! I'm beginning to wonder if you have difficulties reading or issues with anger and simply argue just to argue.

Here’s me earlier: “Lastly, there is no such thing as 'I,' which is a *concept.*”

Now here’s your ‘refutation’: “ The 'I' is a beautifully pure concept.”

"...but the one IS not the other. "

Oh dear... The word 'is' is a copula, and it's CONTEXT-DEPENDENT, Andre. By, 'context,' I mean 'relationship.' Effing Aristotle understood this:

"Clearly, then, 'is' is also said in just as many ways." _Metaphysics_ 1042b 26

OK, so if I say,

1.“2 is larger than 1,”

2. “Pink is a whiter shade of red,”

and

3. “The door is closed,”

have I used ‘is’ in the same sense? NO. Even though ‘2’ and ‘pink’ are each concepts , they cannot be equated except in the most general, abstract, manner as ‘concepts/conceptual.’ They refer to different relationships within the context of each sentence.

“ONLY if you subscribe to the belief that ONLY physical objects exist.”

This has nothing to do with belief, Andre. You’ve consistently ducked every request to define what you mean by ‘exist.’ We’ve defined it’s use here, you don’t like this definition for some reason, but you’ve not told us why in refusing to offer alternative. You must have some other notion by which to judge ‘something,somewhere’ as being insufficient, or maybe you’re simply arguing for the sake of arguing...(?)

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

""Ummm...duh...I thought 'that' represents an object in sentences. Fatfist is such a tool... ahyuck, ahyuck, LOL!"

This is what YOU claimed in the 'shadow' post. Not me.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

You said: "We are in an interesting position when we are asked to perceive our own bodies. How do we do this without circularity? 'We' must perceive our body through the very same senses we perceive everything else!"

I said: "That reminds me, I found the statement about the 'I' contemplating its own body a little strange."

Please explain to me the difference between your use of 'we' and my use of 'I'.

"'That's why we say "I HAVE a body' and not "I AM a body'"

So what? It's a figure of speech."

JUST a figure of speech? For someone who is interested in language, you are very flippant when what is being said does not suit you. What interests me is WHY we say that. Is it a coincidence? I don't think so.

"This has nothing to do with belief, Andre. You’ve consistently ducked every request to define what you mean by ‘exist.’ We’ve defined it’s use here, you don’t like this definition for some reason, but you’ve not told us why in refusing to offer alternative. You must have some other notion by which to judge ‘something,somewhere’ as being insufficient, or maybe you’re simply arguing for the sake of arguing...(?)"

I have given you my defintion of 'exist' numerous times. Look, here it is again: Exist = whatever IS. You don't like it because it is circular. I say any definition of 'exist' IS circular by definition. Give me your again, and I will show you the circle.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

Nope! Not spatially separated from its background. You will require a saw to do that. You have tools, right?

The shadow is a natural EFFECT (phenomenon) that requires a minimum of 3 objects:

1) background screen object,

2) light source object

3) object to be projected.

An object is NOT that which requires a minimum of 3 objects!!! If so, then the question remains: What is an object? See....your CLAIM (that a shadow is an object which requires 3 objects) is CIRCULAR.

The light reflected from the screen under the shadow effect is of a different frequency than the surrounding reflection. Without the light source and the object being projected, there is NO effect in nature we call ‘shadow’ on the background screen. The shadow effect cannot be mediated in a Single Object Universe. Hence, shadow is not an object. Shadow is a VERB.....not a noun of reality.

“An image of an elephant “

Elephant is necessarily an object. Whether you show anybody an image or a real elephant is totally irrelevant as to whether an elephant is an object. Go ask any child over 18 months old.

“Since 'That' is only a place holder, you cannot come and demand that whatever I put in the place of 'That' be able to stand on its own”

‘That’ refers to any word. If the word is a concept, like love, justice or SHADOW..... then this word embodies at LEAST TWO objects. An object is NOT that which has at least 2 objects!!!!! See above.

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

LOL, see how everything is consistent? Andre.....no matter what you try, it is impossible for you to contradict these definitions. You are not the first who pounded his head against the wall for weeks, months or even years.

Fiesta has been pounding his head against the wall for over 4 years!!!! This poor fella can’t even sleep at night....like yourself, he doesn’t want his Religion to die because of a mere trivial definition...object: that which has shape

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Otium,

"You’ve consistently ducked every request to define what you mean by ‘exist.’ We’ve defined it’s use here, you don’t like this definition for some reason, but you’ve not told us why in refusing to offer alternative."

Andre is just like Fiesta. He has a Religion to protect, and its very dear to his heart. He will go down with the ship kicking & screaming.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"Nope! Not spatially separated from its background. " Where does it say, in your definition, that whatever is placed in your definition, must be seperated from its background?

I know what a shadow is, and how it works, thank you. That makes no difference to the fact that it is observable and that it has shape.

"Hence, shadow is not an object. Shadow is a VERB.....not a noun of reality."

Here you demand that whatever replaces 'That' in your original definition, already be an object. CIRCULAR!

Remember that you use your definition to determine what is, and what is not, an object. You cannot demand that only objects be placed in your THAT space.

I can put a concept like 'justice' into your definition:

Justice has shape = object, but it is demonstrably false that 'justice' has shape, so it is NOT an object. It is perfectly clear that shadow HAS shape though. So does that image on your TV, which is quite clearly NOT an actual elephant, so NOT an object.

Which proves that your definition is bogus.

" If the word is a concept, like love, justice or SHADOW..... then this word embodies at LEAST TWO objects."

This is something you are CLAIMING. I have not seen any proof. You cannot use something that is merely a claim, as a proof in an argument.

I think I need to meet this Fiesta .....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Exist = whatever IS.”

Whatever: that which has shape (synonym: thing, object, something, particle, etc..)

Is: exist

Exist: is

You are left with.....exist: object which exists

“ You don't like it because it is circular”

LOL...it is irrelevant who likes or dislikes what. This is not an issue we vote on. What is circular is contradictory because it is meaningless. A horse is a horse....of course of course!

Here.....educate yourself on circularities:

https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/LOGIC-The...

“ I say any definition of 'exist' IS circular by definition.”

Nobody cares what you say when you cannot justify it.

Exist: physical presence (even YOUR God Bill Allen agrees with this....remember?)

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“it is observable and that it has shape.”

Ha ha....what you observed when you were drunk is your own personal business. Your emotions don’t dictate reality.

Fat: "Hence, shadow is not an object. Shadow is a VERB.....not a noun of reality."

Andre: “Here you demand that whatever replaces 'That' in your original definition, already be an object. CIRCULAR!”

Nope, it is YOU who made that demand. You cannot copy/paste any such demand from me. You confuse SYNTAX with CONTEXT. Keep chasing your tail.

“Remember that you use your definition to determine what is, and what is not, an object.”

.....during context when we take the WORD and resolve its referent to determine whether the referent of ‘love’ or ‘shape’ resolves to an object. Did you read the article on concepts to understand this? It is explained in extreme detail.

LOL....you strawmen are very obvious!

“I can put a concept”

Oh, what is a concept?

Concept:_________________

Oh, what is an object?

Object:_______________

Andre, you are not allowed to use the words OBJECT & CONCEPT again in your posts unless you define them without contradictions, got it? Don’t say you haven’t been warned. This is the OFFICIAL word!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"Exist: physical presence" is quite obviously a definition which ONLY deals with that which HAS physical existence. No-one is going to deny that something with physical existence does NOT exist.

Exist = that which has physical presence

This is NOT a definition. This is an amputation. You are denying existence to things that obviously do exist, but which does NOT have physical presence. Things like justice, or the 'I' that you think you are. You are not defining, you are drawing a line and denying existence to things on the wrong side. This is insane.

The concept 'apple' does not exist, but while saying that you identify an object as an apple by USING that concept, which does not exist.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Exist = that which has physical presence. This is NOT a definition. This is an amputation.”

Exactly....we don’t put ‘that which has’ in the definition of an adjective.

Exist: physical presence

“You are denying existence to things that obviously do exist, but which does NOT have physical presence.”

Oh, what do you mean by ‘exist’?? Define it so your above sentence can be TESTED.

Exist:_____________

Object:____________

Concept:___________

You use these words to haphazardly to create strawmen and go around in circles. No more. You are barred from using these words again unless you give meaning to them, got it?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

"Fat: "Hence, shadow is not an object. Shadow is a VERB.....not a noun of reality."

Andre: “Here you demand that whatever replaces 'That' in your original definition, already be an object. CIRCULAR!”

Nope, it is YOU who made that demand. You cannot copy/paste any such demand from me. You confuse SYNTAX with CONTEXT. Keep chasing your tail."

Would you be so kind as to explain this difference then. Using this particular problem we are having.

"Andre, you are not allowed to use the words OBJECT & CONCEPT again in your posts unless you define them without contradictions, got it? Don’t say you haven’t been warned. This is the OFFICIAL word."

LOL ..... So I should accept your definitions or be damned to hell? Why does that sound so familiar?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

"Exactly....we don’t put ‘that which has’ in the definition of an adjective."

That which exists = That which has physical presence

Happy?

How many times?

Exist: that which IS

Justice exists, birds exist, Superman comics exist, Superman exists BUT he is not real (Contextual. 'Superman' exists as a concept, NOT as an object), IF you want to concern yourself ONLY with that which has physical presence, THEN you say Exist: physical presence

Object: That which is observable via the senses and has shape, weight and physical location

Concept: A mental construct

mental: 1.Of or relating to the mind.

mind: (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges,

Construct: an image, idea, or theory, especially a complex one formed from a number of simpler elements.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“So I should accept your definitions or be damned to hell? “

No, Andre. You already know the protocol of intellectual courtesy.

1) You are coming here to make argument and your vocabulary uses these terms: object, concept, exist.

2) You are applying YOUR personal understanding of these terms in an attempt to refute my same defined terms.

3) 1 & 2 don’t mix. You are explicitly making STRAWMEN by using YOUR terms to represent mine. You cannot do that.

4) Since you cannot refute my definitions of object, concept, exist....then you MUST provide your own definitions which I cannot refute.

5) If you do 4, then I PROMISE to use YOUR definitions from now on. Just like I promised to use the definition of “exist: physical presence” provided by Bill Allen.

What is fair is fair, Andre (ooops...that was circular). I have repeated my responses to you over 10 times already. I will not play your game anymore. You cannot refute anything here so you resort to strawmanning and bellyaching instead. Enough, ok?

Now the floor is all yours, Andre. PLEASE define your terms so all of your above sentences can be tested to show that objects AND concepts exist. Please....and thank you!

Exist:_____________

Object:____________

Concept:___________

If you cannot define these terms, then you accept mine by default. Sorry, but we have to draw the line somewhere. This is the only fair solution.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“That which exists = That which has physical presence”

“Justice exists

Nope, don’t have physical presence, as per your definition above. A courtroom, judge, attorneys, defendents have physical presense.....but NOT justice. You cannot even illustrate this alleged ‘thing’ you call justice. Justice cannot be observed, has no shape, no weight or physical location.

“Object: That which is observable via the senses and has shape, weight and physical location”

Who observes it....God? You? So you need a SECOND object to observe ‘the’ object. And who observes the observer to ensure he is an object? And who observes the one who observes the observer to ensure that he is an object too? And who observes blah blah.....infinite regress!! Circularity: Who created God?

So I ask again.....WHAT IS AN OBJECT?

You cannot deflect my question by positing an infinite regression of objects. An object is NOT that which has an infinite regression of objects.

“Concept: A mental construct”

Synonym. WTF is a mental construct???? Do you even know? No synonyms please.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

This is yours: "That which exists = That which has physical presence" ... I just wanted to show you that you CAN use 'That' to describe an adjective.

This is mine: Exist = whatever IS

"You cannot even illustrate this alleged ‘thing’ you call justice." Neither can you .... What's your point?

"Object: That which is observable via the senses and has shape, weight and physical location”

Who observes it...." - I do. The Observer does.

"And who observes the one who observes the observer to ensure that he is an object too?" - Why the hell does the observer have to be an object?

"Who created God?" - I have to stay coherent but you go apeshit? What are you talking about here? Where is the infinite regress?

"You cannot deflect my question by positing an infinite regression of objects. An object is NOT that which has an infinite regression of objects."

WHAT are you talking about? Is THIS how you argue?

"WTF is a mental construct"

In case you missed it the first time:

mental: 1.Of or relating to the mind.

mind: (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges,

Construct: an image, idea, or theory, especially a complex one formed from a number of simpler elements."

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

And now I am breaking up with you. You are mental .... I will from now on only reply to Otium's posts ....

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre-

"Please explain to me the difference between your use of 'we' and my use of 'I'.'

My beef wasn't with 'we' and 'I,' it was with your term "contemplate." Contemplation is observing things at a distance, which was the VERY OPPOSITE of what I stated. You simply replaced 'perceive' (in which there is nothing but *immediacy*) with 'contemplate’ as if the two activities were identical.

“JUST a figure of speech? For someone who is interested in language, you are very flippant when what is being said does not suit you. What interests me is WHY we say that. Is it a coincidence? I don't think so.”

OK, have it your way: ‘I’ can see, feel and touch, ‘my body’ therefore ‘I’ exist, I feels ‘it’!...or wait, is that ‘My ‘I’ exists?’, ah shit, ‘My ‘my’ exists!’ ‘My ‘I’ feels?...grrrr... My ‘I’ has ‘me.’...... Looky! ‘I’ has a body. My body is owned by ‘I’ because body is in ‘I’s’ possession. Body, you are my property!!! ‘I’ is really hip, ‘I’ has an iBody!

'Exist = whatever IS. You don't like it because it is circular."

This has nothing to do with my like or dislike. It’s more about incoherency.

'Whatever'= ______?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“This is yours: "That which exists = That which has physical presence"

Thank you for pointing out my typo, Andre! I am glad you decided to use this irrational definition to misguide yourself.

But I actually went with Bill Allen’s definition because I felt sorry for him...

Exist/real: physical presence

“Exist = whatever IS.”

Whatever: that which has shape (synonym: thing, object, something, particle, etc..)

Is: exist

Exist: is

You are left with.....exist: object which exists

“You cannot even illustrate this alleged ‘thing’ you call justice." Neither can you .... What's your point?”

Then its not a thing/object.

“Who observes it...." - I do. The Observer does.”

Who observes you to ensure you an object??

“Where is the infinite regress?”

Who observes it....God? You? So you need a SECOND object to observe ‘the’ object. And who observes the observer to ensure he is an object? And who observes the one who observes the observer to ensure that he is an object too? And who observes blah blah.....infinite regress!!

You just said: An object is that which needs another object to observer it.....oh, but that is an object, so IT also needs an object to observe it.....blah blah ad infinitum. LOL. You can squirm....but you can’t hide.

“Why the hell does the observer have to be an object?”

Ha ha ha ha!!

“mind”

What is a mind, an object or a concept?

“mind: (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges,”

Exactly! A concept!

Mind is a concept. Do you see your circularity? LOL!

You just said: a concept is a concept....of course of course!

“Construct: an image, idea, or theory, especially a complex one formed from a number of simpler elements."”

Your God cannot be everything. Your God cannot possibly be all powerful as you assert Him.

The definition of a concept does not invoke every single word we can imagine. It has to be specific. All you’ve said is: concept is everything we can imagine. This says NOTHING! Omnipotence is NOTHING!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium

"OK, have it your way: ‘I’ can see, feel and touch, ‘my body’ therefore ‘I’ exist, I feels ‘it’!...or wait, is that ‘My ‘I’ exists?’, ah shit, ‘My ‘my’ exists!’ ‘My ‘I’ feels?...grrrr... My ‘I’ has ‘me.’...... Looky! ‘I’ has a body. My body is owned by ‘I’ because body is in ‘I’s’ possession. Body, you are my property!!! ‘I’ is really hip, ‘I’ has an iBody!"

I guess there is no-one on here to talk to anymore then ..... You are all mad.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre-

"I guess there is no-one on here to talk to anymore then ..... You are all mad."

To say that OUR grammatical structure = the way reality works, is mad. Reality doesn't care about our grammar.

To say, "I have a body" doesn't make 'I' an existing thing that owns a body. That notion may be very workable in POLITICAL theories, and I have some empathy with it as a political theory, but 'self-ownership' in no way makes an disembodied 'I' an existing entity, a 'thing-in-itself' which can 'own' anything.

Please, learn how to understand nuance and context.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

"To say that OUR grammatical structure = the way reality works, is mad. Reality doesn't care about our grammar."

This sentence is so important.....it's worth asking God to make it into an axiom:

To say that OUR grammatical structure = the way reality works, is mad. Reality doesn't care about our grammar.

To say that OUR grammatical structure = the way reality works, is mad. Reality doesn't care about our grammar.

To say that OUR grammatical structure = the way reality works, is mad. Reality doesn't care about our grammar.

To say that OUR grammatical structure = the way reality works, is mad. Reality doesn't care about our grammar.

You'd be surprised how many brain-dead idiots have come here in the past few years asserting that GRAMMATICAL SYNTAX & DICTIONARIES dictate reality. Ha!

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"You'd be surprised how many brain-dead idiots have come here in the past few years asserting that GRAMMATICAL SYNTAX & DICTIONARIES dictate reality. "

And, self-professed 'logicians' are the least delicate crowd there is. 'Existence' is clumsily groped, fondled, bruised, smothered, and nearly hugged to death in their fists-o'-ham.

It's as if they all went to TonkaTruckCollege.edu where they learned the motto: "I believe."

'Reality has a logical structure.' 'We derive our axioms from the Laws of Nature.' 'The Law of Identity is Self-Evident.' and so on...Good grief...

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

This hub now has TWO uses. It provides a clear understanding of what an object IS, and it also shows the futility in attempting to dispute it.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“It provides a clear understanding of what an object IS, and it also shows the futility in attempting to dispute it.”

The reason is clear: you need to take the time to critically reason your definitions to ensure their consistency and applicability across contexts. If a simple example can refute your definition, then it was ambiguous/contradictory all along.

It’s hilarious how people attempt to make their definition bulletproof by predicating it on OMNIPOTENCE. What do I mean by that? They ascribe everything under the Sun to their definition with catch-all phrases and other generic categories.

For example:

Concept: everything we can think of.

The ‘concept’ is now Mightier than God! It can be used to shut your opponent’s mouth because even if your opponent thinks of an OBJECT....it automatically is BOTH a concept AND an object at the proponent’s discretion. This nifty sleight-of-hand fallacy is called: DUALITY. No different than the Duality of Light (particle AND wave)...LOL!

Just who do these people think they are fooling?

And the only way to understand what an object is,.... you must critically isolate it away from everyone’s grubby hands and Religious opinions. You must reason it within the Single Object Universe. There is no other option.

I have been more than fair to Andre. I asked him to provide me with any definition which cannot be contradicted and I will accept it going forward. He cannot do this, yet INSISTS that we MUST accept his contradictory definitions no matter what. But he hasn’t been as fair with me. Even though my definitions cannot be contradicted.....his stubbornness will never allow him to accept them. After all....he doesn't want his Religion to crumble from a petty definition.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Alexx Zerox writes:

“Hey Fatfist Fattie I have three questions about your article, if you care to answer them. First one is this: Do you consider an "object", a concept too? With that I mean, do you consider the word "apple" to be the name for a relation? And two, Do you consider abstractions of objects, as existing? And what is the difference? for example, do you make a difference between "apple" and "fruit"? Are they both objects? And a third question: what is your definition of "shape"? greetz”

“Do you consider an "object", a concept too?”

Before anyone can invoke these terms, they must define them so we know what they are talking about.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

From an ontological perspective, what sense does it make to consider an ‘object’ a ‘concept’ as well? Before humans conquered the Universe, there were only objects. Concepts are relations conceived by sentient beings. Concepts are predicated on objects, not the other way around. It is up to the proponent of this DUALITY to justify how an object, like the Moon, is a concept as well before any beings evolved on Earth to give an opinion on the issue.

“do you consider the word "apple" to be the name for a relation?”

All words are necessarily concepts because they are conceived by humans, right? The letters A P P L E are not written by God on any entity out there, right? As a concept, a word is conceived (i.e. related) by the atomic activity within our brains. The word “apple” is a concept used for linguistic syntactical purposes only. When we establish contextual meaning in sentences, the word “apple” refers to an object. This is what we mean when we say that ‘apple’ is an object. Just like the word “apple”, the word “love” is a concept and a noun of syntax. But the word “love” does not resolve to an object during contextual analysis. In fact, the word “love” is a VERB in the context of reality. It is an activity that people do. Obviously there is a difference between syntax and context.

“Do you consider abstractions of objects, as existing?”

In ordinary speech, to “abstract” objects means to conceptualize them in a relation. For example: The word “furniture” can abstract ‘chair’, ‘table’, ‘couch’, etc in a category. The word “furniture” does not resolve to an object. There is no object you can point to and name ‘it’ furniture or illustrate ‘a’ furniture on the blackboard. You can point to chair can name it ‘chair’. Furniture is a category (a concept)....not a standalone entity.

“what is the difference? for example, do you make a difference between "apple" and "fruit"?”

Similar to ‘chair’ and “furniture”. Apple is an object. Fruit is a concept. We can point to an apple or illustrate it. We CANNOT point to ‘a’ fruit or illustrate ‘a’ fruit. Fruit is a category (a concept)....not a standalone entity.

“what is your definition of "shape"?”

In order to determine WHAT an object is, we must ISOLATE an object away from observers who can relate it to other objects and give their personal opinion and biases about what an object may or may not be. We don’t need tainted testimony from eye-witnesses. After all....all the objects in the Universe were already there before we arrived with our opinions and arrogance, right?

You do realize that any rational definition of OBJECT cannot invoke other objects in its definition, right? An object is not that which has relations to other objects, because the question will still remain: What is an object?

So, how do we isolate an object in order to understand its underlying ontology? We put it in a Single Object Universe where there are no observers to give any opinion on the issue.

Consider a lone object in space....any object (ball, dog, chair, planet, star, etc.) all alone in the Universe with no other objects around. This now becomes a conceptual exercise where we can only critically reason the ontology of an object without eye-witness testimony. This lone object is obviously separate from space. It cannot lose its L,W and H and magically morph into space. We say that this object has spatial separation or shape/form.

By saying that an object has shape, we mean it has a delineation or demarcation which distinguishes it from its environment of space. An object is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. This identifying distinction of shape is the only INTRINSIC property a lone object in the Universe can ever have. That distinction and property is SHAPE. There are NO other properties a lone object can possible have. Any other alleged property would require a second object to establish a comparative relation, and thus it would be an ‘EXTRINSIC’ property (EXTERNAL to the object in question) and EXTERNAL to its ontology! If it’s external to its ontology, then it obviously CANNOT be used to define an object.

1) An INTRINSIC property is a property that an object has of itself, independently of other objects. Can also be referred to as: ontological property.

2) An EXTRINSIC property is a property that depends on an object’s pre-established relationship with other objects.

Shape is a property that refers to the inability of matter to blend with space. As a concept, the word “shape” relates the environment of the referent to what is inside the boundary of the referent. If there is a distinction, then we say the referent has shape and is therefore an object.

NOTE: By SHAPE, we don’t mean “appearance”, “aspect”, “look”, or “likeness”. These words refer to DYNAMIC CONCEPTS because the appearance of an object can change over time. These words also denote "shape" from an observer’s perspective, so they do NOT refer to the ontology of the object itself because they necessarily require another object (eye-witness) to establish some subjective relation.

Our context of SHAPE is an intrinsic STATIC CONCEPT which describes the ontology of any object. Either the alleged entity in question has shape or it doesn’t. It is either spatially separated or it isn’t. It’s a YES or NO issue. There is no other option. Shape is thus observer-independent. The Moon had shape before anyone evolved to give an opinion on the issue.

Object: that which has shape

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Hey Fatfist,

Your buddies need help in PIS. Paul is claiming that clouds and water are objects, and Jake is barely comprehensible ....

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Hey Andre, it takes 10 PIS ants to take on 1 Rational Science member, so I highly doubt they need any help.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Monkeyminds,

I don't think you count well. Everytime I argue against one of you, there's another one, or two, backing him. The one time I had someone in my corner, the fight was really short. I was a little embarressed for the sake of the opposition.

Jake is positively scared of me now. He gets completely hysterical and I think his Caps Lock has lockjaw. Paul acts all hurt and sensitive like, but I saw him be a lion in your group, claiming victory .....

I will take all you guys, Bill included. I think I get your 'philosophy' now, and I am immune to your tactics .....

So, bring it on .....

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

"Paul is claiming that clouds and water are objects,"

But my dear Andre it was YOUR GOD Bill Allen who correctly stated this before!!!!

Just go and re-read Bill Allen's post in the concepts article.

Bill Allen specifically stated that water in an object which exists because it has PHYSICAL PRESENCE.

Paul and Bill Allen are correct. Clouds and water are objects.

Andre, I would kindly ask that you please refrain from trolling here. We had such a nice conversation before....please don't spoil it. If you have anything constructive to offer, please feel free to do so as your intellectual input is greatly welcomed here.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"I don't think you count well."

Often, you don't think at all, Andre.

It would take at least 10 PIS ants, but there aren't that many with the exoskeleton to try.

Go ahead and live in your fantasy world, it's what all the other religious nuts do. Why should you be any different?

Bring it on? What's left to say? You have failed at everything you have tried. Just re-read everything if you want a repeat.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Acutally.....I have offered \$10,000 USD to all the PIS brain-dead losers to come here and refute any article. I have been doing this for the past 3 weeks now. All these clowns have done is bombard my posts with spam just to shut me up.

Now they have started censoring me and deleting my posts because they cannot live up to their chest-pounding claims of refuting my articles.

What losers!!

Andre and Bill Allen were the only brave ones to come here and test the waters. The owner of the group, David Huisjen is completely TERRIFIED to set foot here.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Monkeymind,

You guys seem to make a habit of claiming stuff without proof. And yet you claim to be proponents of the scientific method......

I have not failed. Thus far I have been playing by your rules, trying to understand where you guys are coming from. I know now, so I have nothing more to learn here. Your central claim is false ...... The house of cards crumble from there on up ....

Your central claim is this: Object = that which has shape. That's it ... there is nothing more. This definition can easily be refuted, and has been by me and others, yet you refuse to let go ...... That is a sign of dedication .... Which is admirable, but completely misguided ......

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist, you know what a Catch 22 is, right?

No-one can refute your claim, from your perspective, because you translate everything into your terms, according to your understanding. This is Psychology 101.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Andre, speaking of Catch...if you want to catch something while trolling, you need to put a lot more hooks in the water. Try using a little bait too. It would also help if you had a couple of oars in the water...well...if you don't want to be just carried along by the current.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Wow. The pond is jumping with fish this morning!!!!

"Object = that which has shape...This definition can easily be refuted, and has been by me and others,..."

How so? What is your refutation?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre, c'mon dude....enough ok? I have been more than fair to you.

I told you that you are free to post any argument here. But please, no more repetitions of your previously refuted arguments. They are on the record here multiple times. Any more and it's beyond spam.

Please have a long rest.....collaborate together with David Huisjen and Bill Allen.....use your 3 brains to reason a bulletproof argument and come rip this article to pieces, ok? My comments are getting deleted by David so I can't participate in your philosophy group any more. But feel free to post any new arguments here.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium,

If you follow the definition then shadows, clouds, water and images on your TV must also be objects.

When I brought this up, Fatfist started explaining how shadows are formed, and that they are NOT objects because they need more than one object to exist. This explamation is besides the point, since you claim that your definition is CLEAR and unambiguous, but it is NOT, BECAUSE according to the DEFINITION shadows, clouds, water and images on your TV screen all have shape, and that is the only property it needs to be called an object.

Now you will probably say "But it is clear that shadows are NOT objects." and I will say "Of course it is bloody clear. That is my whole point. YOUR definition makes them objects, not me". - If you were not going to say the above, then just ignore this paragraph .... Oops, too late .....

I also told Fatfist that his definition is circular. But let's deal with shadows first.

• Joegen Baclor 4 years ago

//Fatfist Fattie “If the universe is not an object because it refers to SPACE and matter, how is any anything an object?”

For the same reason that “fruit” and “furniture” are not objects. These are categories (i.e. concepts). You cannot point to ‘a’ fruit as a standalone object. You can point to an apple, orange, etc. We cannot use the word object consistently if we explicitly say that the object itself is made of more objects. It’s circular. The definition of object is not that which is made of other objects.//

Emphasis on : We cannot use the word object consistently if we explicitly say that the object itself is made of more objects. It’s circular

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist

Please show me where you have refuted one of my arguments. I have been following your meanderings to try to understand what your point is. I get your point.

Your whole system of thought is based on this one definition: Object = That which has shape.

Your motivation for choosing this definition, is your misguided belief that simplicity is the same as clarity. You also believe that a definition 'defines' usage, without realizing, that by defining, you are limiting the application of the word you are defining.

Your definition is completely useless. It is not useless because people don't believe in it. It is useless on the most basic level: It is useless because it is inconsistent.

Look again:

object = that which has shape

A tree has shape.

Therefore, a tree is an object.

Therefore, a shadow is an object.

Water has shape.

Therefore water is an object.

A cloud has shape.

Therefore a cloud is an object.

Do you see the problem here? The least you will have to do, is adapt your definition, so it does not give you nonsense statements. Otherwise your definition is NOT CLEAR, and it is AMBIGUOUS. Do you understand that your definition fails?

You argue that shadows are not real, and this argument is fine. It is also irrelevant, since I KNOW shadows are not objects. The problem is, that shadows remain objects according to your defintion.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Wow Andre dude, do you not remember this was already covered? Here let me repost it for you:

FATFIST SAID:"As I explained before.....it is impossible to SEE ‘a’ shadow. Shadow is a concept. Shadow is a verb, not a noun. We can only see objects – period!!! Just like we cannot see love, justice, government, truth, etc....we cannot see ‘a’ shadow.

What we are actually seeing is the effects of differentiation in light frequency when light reflects from the surface of a wall exhibiting the shadow “effect” from a tree. The light reflected to our eyes from the region of the shadow effect is of a different frequency than the rest of the wall. This is basic Light Physics and nothing invented by me.

In any case......those who are NOT versed in Light Physics can easily resolve this apparent “shadow dilemma” by explicitly following my definition of OBJECT: that which has shape. Does ‘a’ shadow have shape? Is there an entity (i.e. shadow) on that real wall which is “spatially separated from space”; i.e. with a border, with Length, Width and Height....and with matter inside the border and space outside of it?

Obviously NOT!! You would need a concrete water saw to cut around that shadow effect on the wall to separate a whole piece from that wall in order to have an object. Why? Because that cut piece is now surrounded by space. It now has spatial separation i.e. SHAPE! And it has it all on its own without observers. That cut piece can certainly qualify as being the only object in the Universe.....whereas ‘a’ shadow cannot!"

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Fatfist started explaining how shadows are formed, and that they are NOT objects because they need more than one object to exist.”

Nope! Fatfist never said that shadows exist. This is your strawman....and quite a desperate one indeed.

“You argue that shadows are not real”

Again.....nope! This is another strawman. I explain WHY ‘a’ shadow does NOT comply with the definition of ‘object’ in an observer-independent manner. After that, it goes without saying that ‘a’ shadow does not exist. I don’t do this backwards. Only YOU are making these statements to obfuscate and misdirect. LOL!

1) Andre claims that shadows are “formed”. Andre makes such ridiculous statements because he still doesn’t understand the difference between an object and a concept. Shadows are NOT formed. You cannot apply the verb “formed” to an effect such as shadow, gravity, light, magnetism, electricity, etc. Only objects can possibly be formed/assembled/created. Shadows are MEDIATED. Shadows are natural phenomena (i.e. effects) that are MEDIATED by the objects that mediate light.

2) Follow the definition for OBJECT: either it has shape or it doesn’t. There is no in-between or variability or room for guesses. Shape is a STATIC CONCEPT.....either has shape or doesn’t.....YES or NO.....that’s what static means. Shadow is a DYNAMIC CONCEPT. Shape != Shadow. Never the twain shall meet. They fall in 2 completely different categories. Shape is an adjective while shadow is a verb. Nobody cares if Andre’s brain is not functioning and cannot grasp the basics.

3) A static concept like ‘shape’ only requires one frame in Mother Nature’s Universal Movie. Dynamic concepts require at least TWO frames....PLUS a sentient observer to discern and relate the frames and give eye-witness testimony of the movie he saw. All objects are static. An object does not need to be in motion in order for it to be an object. Only shape (i.e. static concept) is the requirement for objecthood....NOT motion!

4) The shadow effect is similar to the tornado effect. Is ‘a’ tornado an object? No! The air is an object....the garbage the air picks up and spins are objects themselves. Just because a brain-dead moron like Andre has eyes with a limited Frame Rate of 60 fps.....and the objects of the tornado effect spin much faster than Andre’s eyes can discern.....and Andre subjectively “perceives” the spinning garbage as an allegedly SOLID OBJECT (as his brain extrapolates by filling in the gaps of indiscernible frame rates)......and this numbskull calls this effect ‘a’ tornado (i.e. noun).....it doesn’t make it so!!!!!

5) Andre has no supernatural powers to REIFY this natural phenomenon (i.e. effect/verb) into an object (noun). Not even God can do that. The air and the garbage are objects. Their “motion” and/or the human-indiscernible frame rate of motion is NOT ‘an’ object. Tornado is a dynamic concept (verb - vortex). Shape is a static concept (adjective/property). They are completely different and incompatible concepts.

6) Same applies to the shadow effect. Just because Andre’s retina does not have a response rate to extract a single frame view from the shadow effect......and actually see that there is NO pattern effect on the wall at that specific instant and hence NO VISIBLE SHADOW in a single frame......and thus the shadow effect is NOT static.....this numbskull assumes that what he saw was indeed an object because his brain took a sampling of various frequencies and extrapolated this EFFECT to fill in the gaps and perceive an alleged SOLID object on the surface of the wall. Andre’s stupid brain REIFIED a movie (i.e. effect) into ‘an’ object. Nobody gives a rat’s ass what Andre’s brain opines from his extremely LIMITED SENSORY SYSTEM.

7) That’s why there are NO observers in reality to give TAINTED eye-witness testimony. That’s why all our definitions are OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT.

8) Again, Andre is a BOLD-FACED LIAR: he did NOT “see” ‘a’ shape, as he claimed!!! Shape is a concept. It is impossible to see concepts. You can only see objects. And Andre did NOT “see” this alleged “shadow” object of Mother Nature, otherwise he would be able to pick it up with his hands, like he picks up a rock.

9) What Andre actually CONCEIVED was an effect....a phenomenon....a MOVIE that his brain extrapolated (i.e. reified) into an object! Andre’s eyes, sensory system and brain fooled him.....and that’s his personal problem which does not concern reality.

10) Again....follow the definition. Does ‘a’ shadow have SHAPE???? No! There is no ‘a’ shadow. Shadow is not an ‘a’ or ‘noun’. Shadow is a verb. This is a CONCEPTUAL issue (observer-independent....remember??) and NOT an OBSERVED (i.e. subjective) issue. The definition of ‘object’ is observer-independent, remember??

11) According to Andre’s reasoning.....’a’ love would have shape....the shape of ‘a’ heart. Even though love is a verb....Andre’s brain fills-in the gaps and extrapolates a heart because his boyfriend gave him one for Valentine’s day. Ahhhhh....shucks....that’s sooooooo deliciously sweet! But what the f**k does this have to do with reality??

Again....it is impossible to contradict the definition of ‘object’ with subjective eye-witness testimony because the definition is CONCEPTUAL.....not OBSERVATIONAL, got it?

Again, Andre and his gang of clowns are chasing their tails in circles like a bunch of Rodeo Clowns because they don’t understand the difference between objects and concepts. And they never will. And it is for this reason why they are Atheists who emotionally argue whether a God exists or not.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Andre-

I think you are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Fatfist has stated repeatedly that 'object=that which has shape' refers to shape as the intrinsic property, the property which allows for objects to 'stand-alone.'

Even hypothetical objects like God are assumed to have this property. Shadow, or shading, does not have this property, either hypothetically or existentially. 'Shadowing' is an effect of *blocking light,* and requires at least three existing objects: a light source, a background, and something between the latter two. Shading is no more an object than running is.

Again, I think you've simply allowed yourself to be fooled by grammatical structure ('shadow' as a noun, subject of a sentence, etc.).

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Joegen,

“Emphasis on : We cannot use the word object consistently if we explicitly say that the object itself is made of more objects. It’s circular”

Nope...this is YOUR emphasis of a strawman, Joegen. You cannot copy/paste any such statement I made. I double-dog dare ya!

A table has shape. Its legs have shape. Its surface has shape. The atoms comprising the table have shape.

Where is the inconsistency? Do you even understand what you write?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Monkeymind,

Yes, it does.

" Is there an entity (i.e. shadow) on that real wall which is “spatially separated from space”; i.e. with a border, with Length, Width and Height....and with matter inside the border and space outside of it?"

No, there isn't. Is the above your new definition for 'object' then? The above looks a lot like the traditional, unclear and ambiguous defintion of an object to me .... Why are you using this definition, if yours is much clearer and UNambiguous?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“spatially separated from space”; i.e. with a border, with Length, Width and Height....and with matter inside the border and space outside of it?"

“The above looks a lot like the traditional, unclear and ambiguous defintion of an object to me “

LOL....Andre is sure as hell desperate because he has no further arguments.

Andre.....nobody gives a rat’s ass what “looks” like a definition to you. For the 100 th time: looks are deceiving!

A square does NOT have matter or length and is not separated from outer space. But a square is still an object because it has shape....as have all the objects of Geometry.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist,

Me: "Fatfist started explaining how shadows are formed, and that they are NOT objects because they need more than one object to exist.”

You: "Nope! Fatfist never said that shadows exist. This is your strawman....and quite a desperate one indeed."

Man, you need to learn to read. I said "because they need more than one object to exist." ... meaning, that they DON'T exist according to Fatfist.

You keep arguing that a shadow is NOT an object. This is exactly what your definition is for, isn't it. One should be able to tell what is, and what isn't, an object by applying this definition. Otherwise, what is the point of having this definition? You can argue that shadows are NOT shapes till you're blue in the face. It changes nothing about the fact that according to YOUR definition, shadows ARE objects. Simply because shadows HAVE shape.

"That’s why all our definitions are OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT." One hell of a claim. I wonder how you could possibly prove that.

Air is an object? WTF? How do you figure that? What is the shape of air?

A tornado must be an object too. According to you definition that is. Again, if is NOT an object, then your definition should show us that it isn't. Don't you think?

Again, I am NOT claiming that a shadow is an object. YOUR definition does. I CAN see that a shadow has shape. We also know why a shadow has shape, because we know WHAT a shadow is. We BOTH KNOW that a shadow is NOT an object. YOUR definition claims it is. YOUR DEFINITION SUCKS.

"Again....it is impossible to contradict the definition of ‘object’ with subjective eye-witness testimony because the definition is CONCEPTUAL.....not OBSERVATIONAL, got it?"

Hang on a sec. I thought we were talking about objects in the physical sense. As things that exist. I thought that was the whole point of the definition, to help us establish what actually exists.

Wow, you just flipped your world on its head. So, the definition is conceptual, but it defines what actually exists? What you are telling me here, is that you conceptually figured out what an 'object' is, based on ......... what? You are actually serious about this 'observer-independent' shit?

I am going to need help here. Objects exist because they have shape. Yet, what you are actually refering to, is 'substance'. Objects exist because they have substance. Yet this 'substance' is observer-independent, because these objects would have this substance, whether they are observed or not.

You do realize that saying something is observer-dependent does not imply that it does NOT exist if it is not observed, right?

Secondly, how do you know about 'substance', if you have never observed it? 'Substance' as a concept, needed to be abstracted from observation.

How do you 'deduce' substance?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Otium,

"I think you are confusing yourself unnecessarily. Fatfist has stated repeatedly that 'object=that which has shape' refers to shape as the intrinsic property, the property which allows for objects to 'stand-alone.'"

Then Fatfist is NOT talking about 'shape'. He is talking about substance. If he wants to be clear, WHY is he using 'shape' when he is NOT talking about shape?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Typo:

Reads: "You can argue that shadows are NOT shapes till you're blue in the face. It changes nothing about the fact that according to YOUR definition, shadows ARE objects. Simply because shadows HAVE shape."

Should read: "You can argue that shadows are NOT OBJECTS till you're blue in the face."

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

No, shape is a static concept, not a dynamic one. But you are welcome to justify otherwise and explain to the audience WHY “shadows have shape” as YOU allege.

This will be fun, lol.

It has to suck because it destroys your Religion. So yeah, we agree here. But what sucks more....is being in your predicament.

“ I thought we were talking about objects in the physical sense.”

What an idiot. Object is SYNONYM for physical. Get a life.

“I thought that was the whole point of the definition, to help us establish what actually exists.”

No way!!!!!

Objecthood is separate from existence.....for the 874-th time, you fool. Existence is not even an issue for shadows because these effects FAIL at the object level.

“So, the definition is conceptual”

Absolutely ALL definitions are CONCEPTUAL you potato-head. What did ya think....that definitions are written in the stars or etched on tablets by your God?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist,

Shadows have shape, because there is a dilineation between the light and the darker part, which represents the 'shadow'. Shadows have shape for the same reasons that images do. It has to do with contrast created by light intensity. You have explained why shadows have shape numerous times .... The effect that gives shadows shape, is the same effect that gives objects shape, incidentally. But you are NOT talking about shape. You are talking about substance.

Enough with the religion crap. Explain it or drop it. I don't have a god, I am my own god.

"Object is SYNONYM for physical." OK, so we are talking about physical objects.

"Objecthood is separate from existence" ..... OK. I guess that makes sense after your assertion that some abjects are abstract, meaning does not exist. Can you give me an example of such an object? An object that does not exist?

Your definition was reached conceptually, not via observation. Whether something is seen as an object, usually depends on observation. Which again depends on perception. How did you reach your definition of 'object' except through observation?

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

I understand where Andre's coming from on this one.

Initially it seems to me that when I "visualise" a shadow it's because it has shape. The shadow I am "seeing" in my mind has shape. So it's an object.

It's a bit like a forest; does a forest exist, or is it a concept that relates trees?

Hmmm well, I can use a forest as both concept and object. I can perfectly illustrate a forest. It can also said to have a location. But to have 'forest' I must have 'trees'. What's a forest without trees?! It's a tricky one.

A shadow cannot also have location like the objects on an LCD screen cannot have location. They're optical tricks.

In the case of a shadow, we have a 2d illusion. I can't put a shadow in a box or bump into one. Without another mediating object (that exists) there can be no shadow. So 'shadow' is dependent upon a secondary object. But so what? So is a forest! Hmmm...

Here's the key then. This requires critical analysis. Is shadow dependent upon an observer too? Is an OBSERVER (subject) imagining it? If so, our shadow is a ghost. A ghost that only takes shape when a haunted wall appears and when we perceive the haunted wall and ever-connected wall-ghost with our eyes.

So I get what Fatfist is trying to say as well. It (the shadow) doesn't have shape; it's a ghost of light and illusion we create within our brain.

Turns out, the wall-ghost was just a "part of" the true object, 'wall'. The wall "has" shadow like the wall "is" haunted.

Great discussion! My brain's fried!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“Shadows have shape, because there is a dilineation between the light and the darker part, which represents the 'shadow'.”

Well....we finally get to the bottom of your troubling claim. LOL, like I said before....this will be good.

There is absolutely NO delineation on the ground during the shadow effect. There is only the ground....nothing else. A section of the said ground’s surface is vibrating at a different frequency than the rest. There is no shape or object to be had, none, zip, nada....other than the ground itself, got it??

There is no spatial separation in this natural phenomenon (i.e. effect). Spatial separation is for objects, not for “effects”. ‘A’ vibrating surface is NOT a separate object. ‘A’ vibrating surface has no shape. Only THE SURFACE has shape. ‘A’ vibrating surface is a concept....an effect....a verb.....specifically, a DYNAMIC CONCEPT. Shape is a static concept.

Read the points 1 to 11 above. The problem with you Andre is twofold:

1) You cannot read nor comprehend. I have covered these issues countless of times.

2) You do not understand the difference between an object and a concept.

“It has to do with contrast created by light intensity.”

Not for ‘shape’ it doesn’t. Absolutely ALL surfaces in the Universe are vibrating right this very second within the WHOLE EM SPECTRUM of frequencies. Damn! That makes for a hell of a lot of shadows, don’t it? LOL! Trouble is.....you cannot sense any of these effects because the frequency of surface vibration is outside your visible spectrum. Does this mean there are gazillions of objects crawling on your skin from the EM radiation effects from space or radio/cellular radiation? Ha!

Motion (i.e. vibration/frequency) has absolutely nothing to do with the ontology of objects or objecthood. Objects have a STATIC ontology. Get a life, Andre!

“Shadows have shape for the same reasons that images do.”

No they don’t! Images are concepts, they convey information to us via illustration. Images do NOT have shape. What has shape is the entity illustrated in the image. Images are intended to show us SOMETHING. We create images to convey information to one another via the illustration of objects.

Shadows are natural phenomena. If you say that your God mediates shadow effects to convey information to us....then it is NOT about ‘the’ shadow....it is about THE image/information which you subjectively interpret with your brain. So which one is it?

a) Does God make a shadow of a rabbit on the forest foliage so we can visualize ‘the’ rabbit object....and for God to convey to us that the rabbit is an object that we are allowed to eat?

b) Or is that effect of the light but a mere shadow effect?

Is it a) or b) Andre? Which one?

In similar fashion, is DNA an object inside a cell .....or is DNA the secret information code of life that God sent us, to say: “Hi people of the Earth, I created you and I am always watching you!”? How about it, Andre? Which is it?

“You have explained why shadows have shape numerous times”

Another strawman. Please copy/paste so we can see where I have said that statement. LOL, you are desperate, Andre.

“The effect that gives shadows shape,”

IMPOSSIBLE! You cannot “GIVE” anything shape....neither to an object nor to a concept. Shape is a concept. Concepts cannot be given around like you give cookies to kids. Objects have shape before you can even begin to think about giving them anything....even a paint job.

Object: that which has shape. (Synonyms: exhibit, thing, physical, something, entity, stuff, body, structure, architecture, SUBSTANCE, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

“so we are talking about physical objects.”

Physical is synonym for object. Do you understand that much???? Don’t talk in tautological rhetoric, Andre. A square is physical. It has physical dimensions. Please take a geometry course.

“How did you reach your definition of 'object' except through observation?”

Perhaps when YOUR God made all the other objects in the Universe disappear and just left me alone in space. Oh, yeah....your God had to vanish too so I don’t subjectively relate Him into the definition and make it subjective. Yep...I SAW & PERCEIVED myself with my own eyes as the only object in the Universe!

Are you on drugs, Andre???

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre, you are no different than a Theist. You are making the exact same subjective/emotional arguments that Atheists/Theists make when arguing with each other.

Atheism is a synonym for Theism.....in case you haven't figured out this one, Andre. But that lesson you will learn well some other time.

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Horse Race

Horse race does not exist. We cannot draw a picture of the object called “horse race”. Yes, it seems a bit weird to say that “a” horse race does not exist because we can go to “a” horse race and watch it. “A” horse race is a dynamic process involving objects (horse x12, little man x12, post x1), so when we go to “a” horse race we are observing a dynamic process and not an object.

The same can be said for shadow. If we remove “motion” from the process there will be no horse race or shadow.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

We are not even talking about existence, Jonas. And we don't ever need to in order to determine whether any word resolves to either an object or a concept. Horse race is a concept....specifically, a dynamic one. Shape is a static concept. Poof goes 'horse race' kicked out of the objects category. Same with shadow and tornado....POOF they go!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“How did you reach your definition of 'object' except through observation?”

Andre is still waiting for the Priests of Atheism to give him an observation which proves that God doesn't exist. Makes sense, huh? Don't laugh, this makes sense to Atheists like Andre et all.

LOL....this is what poo-poo heads do when they can't use their brains to reason the basics.....they gawk!

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Yes, of course fatfist. The topic is object versus concept. If we highlight the difference between a movie and a still image we can resolve which is which. However, Andre is likely to reject any rational argument, no matter how well expressed; he must preserve that belief of his at any cost.

I'd really like to see Andre show us a picture of "a" shadow against a white background: just "a" shadow and a background. Can you do this Andre? I can draw a picture of a horse against a white background, can you do the same with "shadow"?

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Blame it on Dunkin Donuts for selling donut holes!

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"Blame it on Dunkin Donuts for selling donut holes!"

Monkey, I've had a mathmagician try to use that one on me as "proof" of holes. Can you believe it!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Yep....Mathematicians are known to "prove" the existence of holes by putting their fingers in them. Just keep these nympho-geek creeps away from me!

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Tell him, I'm a fence builder and will pay him good money for some post holes, new or used!

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

The problem with supplying ready-made holes is packaging. No matter what you put them in, they all fall out the holes and you lose them.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

SOL,

“Initially it seems to me that when I "visualise" a shadow it's because it has shape.”

Yes, the key word is: “seems”. And the reason is because most don’t consider that shadow is an effect of light frequency. It’s like saying that a “horse race” has shape because the horse has shape. But “horse race” is an effect, a process, an action, a dynamic concept. We need to remember that shape is a STATIC concept. That ends all discussions of effects.

“It's a bit like a forest; does a forest exist, or is it a concept that relates trees?”

Ok, this is irrational because it invokes mereology. It’s like saying that a table is a concept because it is made up of atoms. Like a table....a forest does not relate. A forest consists of trees and a table consists of atoms. Remember, forest is NOT a category like “furniture” or “fruit” are categories. You can point to a forest from a birds-eye perspective in a plane. The forest has shape. The forest is an object. The plane crashed into the forest and bisected it in half. You can’t do that to a concept. The plane didn't bisect "trees" in half....it cut the forest in half.

“Hmmm well, I can use a forest as both concept and object.”

No, a forest has shape. It is this mereology which confuses people. Mereology has nothing to do with categories or relations.

“In the case of a shadow, we have a 2d illusion.”

Specifically, what we have is an individual whose eyes observed a change of surface color....and whose brain is INTERPRETING this effect to have shape, and thus an object. Again: observers and interpretations play no role in reality. In reality, shadow is an effect only because it is a dynamic process (i.e. a movie).....not a photograph (i.e. static object). So shadow obviously fails at the conceptual definitional level of “object: that which has shape”.

“I can't put a shadow in a box or bump into one.”

Indeed...shadow also fails at the OBSERVATIONAL see/touch level of inquiry because the eye-witness cannot pick up this natural object he claims to be a shadow. Not only that....but shadow can never be an object in a Single Object Universe.

Shadow = total failure as object.

“This requires critical analysis. “

It doesn’t require deep thinking. It just requires a person to realize that they are dealing with changes in light frequency, hence dynamic. But shape can only be static. They are mutually exclusive concepts.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist, man but you've got your panties in a bunch ....

The question is NOT what is a shadow and why it isn't an object, you moron. The question is, Why does YOUR definition make a shadow an object. Please answer me that.

Your stupid definition has ou arguing that shadows don't have shape, based on your wacky definition of 'shape'. Shadows don't have SUBSTANCE, but they do have shape. 'Shape' as used by sane people. Not YOUR fucked-up version.

Also, instead of laughing at the question "How did you reach your definition of object', except through observation?", why not simply answer it?

Do you NOT see how your definition is making you redefine EVERYTHING else, in order to keep your definition intact? Let it go man. It's not worth it. It's going to drive you insane.

"Shadow = total failure as object." And again ..... NO-ONE is arguing that a shadow is an object! YOUR definition classifies it as one. You are arguing with YOURSELF.

"We are not even talking about existence, Jonas. And we don't ever need to in order to determine whether any word resolves to either an object or a concept."

All words are concepts, right? So, every concept resolves to either a concept, or an object. Is that right?

See, this is why idiots shouldn't try on Philosophy. All you will end up doing, is yourself in the A-hole. If you want to play this game, you need some kind of intellectual integrity.

A forest is an object? LOL ..... see, there you go again. A forest is a concept, you twat. A tree is an object. Then you get a bunch of trees together, and you have a forest. This is why you should stay away from Philosophy. YOU are beating yourself up, trying to twist your world to match this one, fucked-up definition: Object = That which has shape.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

"See, this is why idiots shouldn't try on Philosophy."

Look, Andre. I appreciate your questioning, but please... idiots who are considered Philosophy incarnate have tried telling us that human abstractions inhabit some fairy-realm outside any taint of mud, change, and sweat (Plato). Or maybe you think 'the Monads,''the Categorical Imperative,' 'Absolute Spirit,'' the labor theory of value,' 'or 'elan vital,' are somehow venerable...?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“The question is, Why does YOUR definition make a shadow an object.”

I give up. Why?

“shadows don't have shape, based on your wacky definition of 'shape'. “

Any word can only resolve to having ‘shape’ BY DEFINITION only! You cannot define anything and that’s why you chase your tail in circles...LOL.

“Shadows don't have SUBSTANCE, but they do have shape.”

Oh, please explain how an EFFECT (a concept) has shape! Oh, this will be good....real good!!!!!

“Do you NOT see how your definition is making you redefine EVERYTHING else”

Object: that which has shape

No redefining here!

“NO-ONE is arguing that a shadow is an object!”

Wrong! You are!

Andre: “The shadow, where it is cast against the wall, has shape. “

Effects are dynamic. Shape is static. Never the twain shall meet, you moron! Shadow will never have shape...not by my definition or by any other. Just try to invent a definition and I will show you where it fails to make shadow have shape...LOL.

“A forest is a concept”

The plane crashed in the forest. Did the plane crash in ‘the’ concept? No matter how much you try....you can NEVER demonstrate that forest is a relation between objects. A forest consists of trees just like a table consists of atoms. A forest is NOT a category like furniture is a category (i.e. a relation). What else fits in your alleged category of ‘forest’ other a friggin’ tree, you stupid moron?

Andre: “A tree is an object. Then you get a bunch of trees together, and you have a forest.”

Fat: “An atom is an object. Then you get a bunch of atoms together, and you have a table.”

“This is why you should stay away from Philosophy.”

Exactly! We agree 100% here. You need to stay far away because you don’t have a brain!

“Object = That which has shape.”

....and don’t you ever forget it because you will NEVER be able to refute it.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“A tree is an object. Then you get a bunch of trees together, and you have a forest. A forest is a concept, you twat.”

It is statements like these which should be reason enough for people to abandon this fanatical Religion they call Atheism.

The brain-dead numbskulls of this Religion propose that bricks are objects, but the house built with bricks is a CONCEPT!!!

These idiots actually think they live inside a concept for Christ’s sake. Robin Hood lives inside the forest concept.

Jezus....idiots come here to act like Academic Intellectuals while not even understanding the difference between a COMPOSITION and a RELATION.....or the difference between an object and a concept.

Andre....is it any wonder why your buddies from the PIS forum have abandoned you here? Do you understand why they refuse to stand behind your stupid statements? Not Bill Allen, not Joegen Baclor and certainly not David Huisjen. If these stupid clowns refuse to come here and defend your arguments....then what do you think you are? A bright? A freethinker perhaps? Or a poo-poo head?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist,

"The question is, Why does YOUR definition make a shadow an object.”

I give up. Why?"

Here are the dictionary definitions (focusing on USE) of 'shape' and 'shadow'. Can you see that, according to these definitions, shadows can be said to have shape?

shape:

a. The characteristic surface configuration of a thing; an outline or contour. See Synonyms at form.

b. Something distinguished from its surroundings by its outline.

1. dark figure or image cast on the ground or some surface by a body intercepting light.

2. shade or comparative darkness, as in an area.

3. The rough image cast by an object blocking rays of illumination

The way you use 'shape' is ambiguous ...... Damn. Emergency. Back later .....

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist,

What do you mean by this: "Any word can only resolve to having ‘shape’ BY DEFINITION only!"? I am guessing you are having a go at 'observation' again, but I would rather you clarify.

"Shape is static." Why do you think that 'shape' is static?

"The plane crashed in the forest. Did the plane crash in ‘the’ concept? No matter how much you try....you can NEVER demonstrate that forest is a relation between objects. A forest consists of trees just like a table consists of atoms."

Errrr, the plane crashed into the trees. The trees which make up the forest. No, your 'forest' to 'table' comparisson doesn't work. A forest consists of trees, and ONLY trees. A group of trees ONLY makes a forest. The same is not true of the atoms in a table. There is nothing unique about the atoms in a table, other than the way they are configured. If you change the configuration of trees in a forest, you still get a forest.

A group of lions is called a pride. Is 'pride' also an object? It does have shape, you know.

Where do you get this definition of a concept from? It is ridiculous.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

Fatfist said:

"Andre....is it any wonder why your buddies from the PIS forum have abandoned you here? Do you understand why they refuse to stand behind your stupid statements? Not Bill Allen, not Joegen Baclor and certainly not David Huisjen. If these stupid clowns refuse to come here and defend your arguments....then what do you think you are? A bright? A freethinker perhaps? Or a poo-poo head?"

PIS, unlike Rational Science, is not a fraternity. It consists of individuals with their own beliefs and ideas. It is NOT a cult.

I am stupid, but so are you, and everyone else I have ever met. We have our strengths and weaknessess. The only difference between me an you, is that I KNOW I am stupid, so I look for the 'stupid' in what I do.

I don't need anyone to come and defend my arguments. They are MY arguments, so I take full responsibility for them.

I know this is unkind, but you asked: Bill Allen, Joegen Baclor and David Huysen all agree that you are not worth their time. I am the only idiot that is not so sure. You seem to have something to say, so I think you deserve a chance.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre: “The trees which make up the forest.”

Andre:” A forest consists of trees, and ONLY trees. “

Andre: “A group of trees ONLY makes a forest.”

Andre: “There is nothing unique about the atoms in a table, other than the way they are configured. “

Andre: “If you change the configuration of trees in a forest, you still get a forest.”

Fat: “The tree molecules which make up the table”

Fat: “A table consists of tree molecules, and ONLY tree molecules. “

fat: “A group of tree molecules ONLY makes a table.”

Fat: “There is nothing unique about the tree molecules in a table, other than the way they are configured. “

Fat: “If you change the configuration of tree molecules in a table, you still get a table.”

“PIS....consists of individuals with their own beliefs”

Exactly! A fanatical Religious cult!

Andre: “I am stupid”

This is the most important piece of information you’ve said here. And it stems directly from this:

Andre: “Mine [Religion] is not that clearly defined, but I also believe.”

That’s why a clown like you has no arguments and is just resorting to trolling in the hopes that we forget about your previous failures.

Andre: “I KNOW I am stupid, so I look for the 'stupid' in what I do.”

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So don’t ever complain that I am misrepresenting you or mistreating you. I let you do the talking.

“You seem to have something to say, so I think you deserve a chance.”

Wrong! It’s the other way around. I have been letting you spew your nonsense here for a long time. Nobody else would do that and you know it! So I kindly ask you to go get a good rest and this time PLEASE use your brain (instead of your emotions) to come up with a new argument against the definitions which upset you. Or in the alternative, conceive your own non-contradictory definitions which I cannot refute. Enough trolling spamming games here, ok?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

-Bertrand Russell

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Sorry to doubt you, Andre. But if I have to accept your definitions just because of your emotional plea, then I'd have to accept everyone else's. A definition stands on its own. It doesn't need the backing of any authority or emotion. It doesn't need to be doubted, liked, disliked. It only needs to be used consistently.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Guy I was speaking to yesterday:

"Objects don't really exist. Even with your 'shape' definition, because the shape is only temporary. A planet (object A) may explode into atoms (objects B-Z), so clearly existence is not an adjective and static, but continuous and temporary. Like a verb (to exist), as I was saying!"

He then proceeded to call me names and enquired about my Phd.

What's the best way to deal with this buffoonery? I just couldn't get through to him and he kept switching between 'object' and 'exist'.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Sorry that should have been "contiguous" not "continuous", although I'm paraphrasing him slightly.

Basically he was harping on about how objects merge, exist, cease to exist, blend, become distinct, but how that is only an 'illusion', bla bla...

And would you believe it if I said that this guy had actually studied physics at Masters level?!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

SOL,

“I just couldn't get through to him and he kept switching between 'object' and 'exist'.”

Don’t get too hung up on trying to convince people of anything. Convincing is what Governments and Religions do...with threats!

All you need to do is showcase his contradictions in his statements, just as I did with Andre Jacobs. Actually, Andre is indeed convinced and is smart enough to understand it is impossible to define OBJECT & EXIST by invoking observers. Only a Single Object Universe can be used to define an object. But Andre has spent his whole life of 30+ years believing in his Religion and how it models reality. He doesn’t want to admit that he has been a fool all his life believing in bullshit. That’s why he will forever fight rationality. That’s why all these folks will Appeal to Ignorance & Irrationality (i.e. fallacies) in order to protect their Religions at all costs....no different than fanatical Born Again Christians.

“Objects don't really exist”

Ask him to define ‘object’ and ‘exist’. Then we’ll all know whether his statement is the case or not. He is not allowed to use those 2 words in a sentence about reality unless he defines them. So just watch him make a fool out of himself and chase his tail in circles forever.....just like Andre Jacobs did for over a month.

“the shape is only temporary”

No. Shape is static. There is no provision for time in the definition of SHAPE. I will say this again because it is soooooo important:

There is no provision for time in the definition of SHAPE! Shape is the static relation between what is inside a border and the environment. That’s it.

There is no time. Time is observer-dependent. Take a snapshot of an apple. The object ‘apple’ is static in both shape and objecthood. Look at the snapshot in 400 years from now. An apple is still an apple. The apple still has shape. The apple did not lose shape in the picture and vanish magically. We can destroy the picture but we have not destroyed the OBJECTHOOD of 'apple'. We can illustrate this same apple again 5000 years from now.

Existence has nothing to do with objecthood. Objects are objects whether they exist or not. Aristotle is still an object with shape regardless of whether he exists or his skeleton exists or his atoms are dispersed in another galaxy. Confusing objecthood with existence is not an argument. They are completely different concepts. Only fools confuse these 2 concepts.

“A planet (object A) may explode into atoms...”

LOL....this looks like an argument that Andre Jacobs would make. That idiot STILL REFERS to “planet” (which is an object) even though it exploded and doesn’t exist!!! This entity is the subject of his sentence, whether the ENTITY exists or not. LOL....these stupid morons contradict themselves with every statement. This is actually hilarious!

“he was harping on about how objects merge, exist, cease to exist, blend, become distinct,”

Irrelevant to his argument from ignorance. Objects perform actions. So what? The twin towers were demolished in 9/11. There are still objects. An artist can illustrate them. We can make a movie to theorize how they collapsed. All events in nature are consummated. All events we can ever talk about occurred in the past. There is no current event that happened now.....as ‘now’ is already in the past before we can even speak of it. Does that mean that the twin towers didn’t exist? Does that mean that nobody died that day in the past? Obviously this idiot is snorting some serious cocaine.

The concept of ‘existence’ has nothing to do with the concept of ‘objecthood’. Andre Jacobs fell into the same irrational trap as this idiot. People will ALWAYS resort to irrationality and bullshit to protect their Religion at all costs. Normal human behavior....nothing new here.

“this guy had actually studied physics at Masters level”

Then he should be able to define ‘object’ and ‘exist’. Ask to him to look in the index of his Physics books. If he can’t define, he is no different than a shoe-shine boy!

Irrelevant argument. Titles mean nothing. Just because you are not a brain surgeon, does it mean you cannot perform brain surgery without attaining that fancy title? Brain surgeons learn by trial & error by practicing on dead bodies. This is how all fields of study work. You can do the same and be better at brain surgery in a few years than a seasoned title holder with 25 years under his belt. Every person has different abilities. Fancy titles don’t bestow abilities. Titles are concepts. Only objects, like a human and perform something....not his fancy title.

There are no magical authorities that were blessed & certified by God to be experts in any field. The word ‘expert’ is an oxymoron who is parroted by morons!

• Asno Mudo 4 years ago from London

In fact, Bertrand Russell almost went mad, while Turing, Cantor, Godel, Boltzmann and others committed suicide after relentlessly searching for absolutes.

Cool piece of hyperbole ... but it's kind of shameful to deny the real concrete consequences of the persecution Turing suffered due to his homosexuality!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

"but it's kind of shameful to deny the real concrete consequences of the persecution Turing suffered due to his homosexuality!"

Nobody is denying it, and it was harder for people to cope back then than it is today. But homosexuality was not responsible for his dementia and ultimate suicide. Read up on his struggles with math, God and absolute certainty. This drove him insane. He had many bigger issues to deal with than just homosexuality.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

"All you need to do is showcase his contradictions in his statements, just as I did with Andre Jacobs."

I guess I may have missed those posts.

"Actually, Andre is indeed convinced and is smart enough to understand it is impossible to define OBJECT & EXIST by invoking observers."

LOL ..... It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers. Fatfist is simply not smart enough to see how he IS exactly doing that when he 'defines' both these concepts.

"Only a Single Object Universe can be used to define an object. "

And like all thought experiments, this one is also bogus. Simply because you, the Observer, is always present ..... even in your thought experiment, Fatfist.

"Ask him to define ‘object’ and ‘exist’."

And then after he does that, hit him with your Observer-dependent shape definition and your Observer-dependent thought experiment, and show him what a nut you are. And if he is still talking to you after that, convince him that clouds, forests and shadows are objects too ....

"There is no provision for time in the definition of SHAPE."

And that's how you know you have a bogus defintion. And also that you believe in god, the timeless shapely one.

"People will ALWAYS resort to irrationality and bullshit to protect their Religion at all costs."

Yip, exactly like you do, Fatfist.

"Then he should be able to define ‘object’ and ‘exist’."

And he will probably define it quite well too. Except it is not YOUR definition, so it is obviously not the right one. Since yours is timeless and shapely, and handed down by god.

I have been thinking about you bunch of nuts over yonder in E-rational Science. I really admire your spunk. And that goes for Bill too. You definitely have the Questioning Gene, which is awesome. Unfortunately you are simply just not smart enough to figure it out for yourselves.

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

“It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers...”

It is a given that we use our brains to define words. Andre is simply not smart enough to see how this is completely irrelevant to the actual definition! That an object has shape is not dependent on any observer, it has shape by virtue of its separation from a background.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Jonas

"It is a given that we use our brains to define words. Andre is simply not smart enough to see how this is completely irrelevant to the actual definition! That an object has shape is not dependent on any observer, it has shape by virtue of its separation from a background."

We do not only use our brains to define words. What you perceive as an object, or background, also depend on the same brain. Without a brain there is ...... Who knows?

• El Dude 4 years ago

It has nothing to DO with knowledge, Andre you pea-brain. Definitions, remember? You have an intellectual capacity and attention span of an 8-year-old.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ El Dud

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Er...uh...perception compares one's limited senses to their limited knowledge, ergo Kill the Observer!

• El Dude 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs, just two comments ago:

"Who knows?"

Andre Jacobs, just one comment ago:

STUNNING.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ monkeyminds

What I am talking about = Perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

What you are talking about = Perception: immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

“It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers“

Object: that which has shape

Exist: something somewhere; physical presence (an object having location)

It is impossible to have observers in these and any Scientific Definitions. You contradict yourself because you are a stupid Religious fool belonging to a fanatical Fundamentalist Religious group PIS, Andre,....and you even admitted it yourself and proved it on the record....here, read what YOU posted:

Andre: “I am stupid”

Andre: “Mine [Religion] is not that clearly defined, but I also believe.”

Andre: “I KNOW I am stupid, so I look for the 'stupid' in what I do.”

Andre: “PIS....consists of individuals with their own beliefs”

“[Single Object Universe ]....And like all thought experiments, this one is also bogus.”

Exactly! Bingo! Of course, idiot....ALL thought experiments are bogus!!! That’s what Einstein, Hawking, Saga, Pastor Lemaintre, Dawkins, etc. did. They all ran contradictory consummated event scenarios in their brain that were IMPOSSIBLE to show as a movie on the big screen. They couldn’t even illustrate them on paper for Christ’s sake. These morons couldn’t even visualize frame-by-frame what they saying.

I have NEVER EVER EVER ran a single thought experiment! But you are welcome to justify otherwise....LOL.

A single object universe is NOT a thought experiment....NOT an event....NOT an action/verb, you stupid brain-dead clown. It’s STATIC. Not DYNAMIC (i.e. event/experiment). All you have to do to justify it as a “thought experiment” is to show MOTION for a single object. If no motion, then NO experiment of any kind...Ha!

You don’t even understand grammar, language, concepts, objects or any words. You are brain-dead, like all you clowns in PIS who claim that nothing exists. No wonder you are nothing but a choir boy who opens his mouth for this Priest to ram his penis down his throat.

“Observer-dependent shape definition and your Observer-dependent thought experiment, and show him what a nut you are.”

Of course, that’s what ALL your definitions have been so far...you are on the record. Calling yourself a ‘nut’ doesn’t add anything more than the “idiot” you called yourself earlier, right?

“convince him that clouds, forests and shadows are objects too”

Only Priests go door to door trying to convince. A human can explain what they say. Yeah Andre, you tried to convince, but that’s irrelevant because your definitions explicitly invoked observers.....some multiple observers. All contradictory.

“I have been thinking about you bunch of nuts”

Sorry to cause you so much stress and keep you awake at night. You can’t even get it up for your wife anymore. Actually, I’m lying....you were never able to get it up for your wife because you are a little girl. You are not a man.....you were never a man. Only a REAL man can come here and justify his argument. Any men in your household, Andre? Didn’t think so!

Perhaps your Priests Joegen Baclor and Bill Allen who feed their spunk down your throat can come here and rescue you. But they are terrified...LOL. Are they just good for feeding you spunk? Better taste good or else you’re getting Royally Shafted for no reason!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ El Dud

Seriously? From the context of what I wrote "We do not only use our brains to define words. What you perceive as an object, or background, also depend on the same brain. Without a brain there is ...... Who knows?"

You cannot conclude that I am NOT actually talking about knowledge, but by preception?

What was Jonas talking about? Seperation? Seperation of what? A divorce? An amputation? Have you ever heard the word 'context' mentioned?

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Andre the Midget: "What I am talking about = Perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

What you are talking about = Perception: immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception."

Perception is bottom up (sensory processing) and top down )concept processing er...knowledge).

Interesting that a mental midget has such extraordinary powers to read my mind and "know" what I am talking about!

Yea, verily, smite him again, and again, oh mighty fist! For he knows not that which he speaketh.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

And smite him twice for using...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perception

Also for these:

Appeal to Popular definition, Appeal to authority, Appeal from Ignoramousness and Appeal from a banana.

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

"What was Jonas talking about? Seperation? Seperation of what? A divorce? An amputation? Have you ever heard the word 'context' mentioned?"

Andre, these issues have been covered multiple times before. You understand perfectly what the definition of shape is from your involvement on this hub. Obviously PIS is a little dull at the moment so you decided to come and troll this hub again.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ FatList

"“It is impossible to define OBJECT or EXIST without invoking observers“

Object: that which has shape

Exist: something somewhere; physical presence (an object having location)"

WHO is defining? WHOSE perception is used to 'create' the concepts you are using to define with?

How do you know what a 'that' is if you do not have experience of a 'that'? There can be no concepts such as 'somewhere' or 'something' without an observer.

I am going to ignore all the other crap you wrote.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Monkemind

You are funny ..... So, I am not allowed to use a dictionary? I am sorry I did not post without mentioning the source ... smite me indeed.

Whose definition would you appeal to then?

@ Jonas

I got an alert that Fatfist used my name in vain. I just replied to him. I don't know why all you other jokers are on my back. And I am bored? LOL

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ MonkE

"Perception is bottom up (sensory processing) and top down )concept processing er...knowledge)."

I was talking about sensory perception ..... Is that better? Did your mama not teach you to ask if you don't understand?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

“WHO is defining?”

ALL words are lexical concepts (i.e. of a language). Some resolve to objects via a referent while the rest are concepts. All concepts are defined otherwise words cannot have meanings and no communication is possible. All concepts are defined by humans,.... not by God and handed to us in a Dictionary of Commandments, like you insinuate.

“WHOSE perception is used to 'create' the CONCEPTS you are using to define with? How do you know what a 'that' is if you do not have experience of a 'that'?”

LOL! Ha ha! What an idiot!

Concepts are CONCEIVED...C-O-N-C-E-I-V-E-D....do you understand this much?? Only perceptions are perceived. Words & definitions are conceived.....and impossible to be perceived or experienced or known. This is only a CONCEPTUAL issue of critical reason....not of sensory experiment. Andre, you are a little stupid girl who goes down on her knees, opens her mouth to swallow the spunk of Joegen Baclor and Bill Allen. I can’t believe you swallow this filthy shit. Get off this stuff ASAP....it has rotted your brain!

“There can be no concepts such as 'somewhere' or 'something' without an observer.”

Of course! Yes! Bingo! All concepts are CONCEIVED by humans. We conceive of the concepts which we use to represent what is out there in reality. As part of these conceptions, we DEFINE them rigorously and unambiguously so that we can use them in sentences to communicate.

Idiot Andre still doesn’t understand the diff b/w object & concept. Here Andre,.....educate yourself and read what Bill Allen did NOT want you to read so that he can continue to pump his balls and drain his spunk down your throat:

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"Whose definition would you appeal to then?"

The one making the presentation provides a definition for the Key Terms on which their presentation depends.

" I don't know why all you other jokers are on my back":

Dog pile on the rabbit. Dog pile on the rabbit.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

"I have NEVER EVER EVER ran a single thought experiment! But you are welcome to justify otherwise....LOL."

I missed this part among all the other crap you were slinging. So, this universe of yours with only ONE object existing is NOT a thought experiment? What are you on?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

"So, this universe of yours with only ONE object existing is NOT a thought experiment?"

I explained WHY it wasn't. If you disagree, please justify your claim that it MIGHT be. Otherwise, please stop these trolling posts, ok?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Monkeymind

"Dog pile on the rabbit. Dog pile on the rabbit."

No thanks. Go teabag some of your gay friends that care ....

"The one making the presentation provides a definition for the Key Terms on which their presentation depends."

Yeah, that's what I did. That is actually the definition I agree with. *Gasp*

@ Fatfist

What's wrong with you? Does your mother know that you fantasize about other men's semen?

"I explained WHY it wasn't. If you disagree, please justify your claim that it MIGHT be."

Man, you need to get off the wacky-backy ..... OUR universe is the one where lone objects DO NOT exist. It is impossible for your experiment NOT to be a thought experiment.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

"OUR universe is the one where lone objects DO NOT exist."

Oh, what do you mean by 'exist'?

"It is impossible for your experiment NOT to be a thought experiment."

And now you are trolling with these unjustified claims. You can't back up your empty claims, so enough trolling, ok?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

Are you sure you are not a woman? Now I am trolling after YOU commented about what I wrote.

LOL .... hang on. You prove existence by claiming your single-object-universe supplies the proof, but I need to define exist. You can create universes with lone objects in, but I have to define existence ... LOLOLOL ..... How long were you in rehab for?

If you consider that all we have is perception, then what exists is anything that is perceived.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Stop trolling Andre,....read my last comments to you.....all concepts are CONCEIVED, never perceived. Stop the strawmen, ok? Misrepresenting my posts shows your desperation.

"prove existence"

How do you do that? What does PROVE mean?

If you can prove that you have an arm I will PayPal you \$2000 USD. Can you do that?

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Dog pile on rabbit is not sexual at all, it's purely a violent sport.

"No thanks. Go teabag some of your gay friends that care ...."

Yet, here you are...Slow day with the PIS ants?

"That is actually the definition I agree with."

We don't agree with definitions, we accept them for purposes of your theory if they are rational.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Monkeymind

I see only Fatfist understands this game .... Thank you for the explanation there. I was in school too. We didn't call them dogpiles though .... Different country, different langauge, same idea.

Definitions are not rational, theories are. Definitions describe, they don't explain.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

Andre the Midget: "Definitions are not rational, theories are. Definitions describe, they don't explain."

No definitions define. Theories explain!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Rational definitions are unambiguous, consistent and non-contradictory, Andre. That's why you don't have any ANTIDOTE for the Scientific definitions of object & exist. That's why you can't sleep at night.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

"all concepts are CONCEIVED, never perceived." Yip, and yet 'apple' is a concept too. How do you figure that, Bubba?

"If you can prove that you have an arm I will PayPal you \$2000 USD. Can you do that?"

I have a better idea. How about you PayPal me the money, and THEN I play with you. I would rather waste my time while getting paid, wouldn't you?

I feel no need to prove I have an arm. Having an arm is enough.

Your proof for existence is whether something can BE that lone object in the universe. We have talked before ..... remember?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre, enough is enough. No more playing here. All your arguments have been exhausted. People came here to have a discussion with you....obviously you have nothing to offer. Fourth and final warning.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"The definitions you are talking about are little knives you use to limit the meaning of a word. "

Yes, you have just defined definition.

Definitions are limitations on a word so that it can be used in a presentation consistently.

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

"How about you PayPal me the money, and THEN I play with you. "

Typical PIS ant philosopher. They want to get paid (and in advance) to not actually work, but to play.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

Unlike PIS, David Huisjen and Bill Allen.....we don’t ban folks here who present arguments that can either educate us or refute our articles. We welcome this as we have NO Religion to protect. Andre admittedly has a Religion to protect.

Here we ban idiots who consistently come to troll without any arguments.

Andre....you will not be posting here again unless you have an argument.....and a NEW argument....no more repeating your debunked nonsense that you posted over 20 times already.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs: “Seriously though? Are you functionally retarded? Please leave me out of your lame-ass posts .... Or at least have the integrity to whip me, instead of claiming to do so. You are the reason I can't stand people and make a point of NOT engaging them. I can deal with stupid. What I cannot deal with are the kinda low-lives like you that is all mouth and no guts. How the fuck do you look yourself in the mirror? Oh, that's right ..... money. You disgust me ....”

Andre sent me the above PM which explains why he came here in a trolling fit. Andre is too embarrassed of his previous posts because he couldn’t put his money where his mouth is....i.e. to define ‘object’ & ‘exist’. Many have found our conversations very educational and use these fatfist-Andre arguments to DEFEAT others with similar contradictory reasoning as Andre.

So yeah....Andre, if you are inadequate as a human....if you are not a man who is proud of his arguments.....if you are too embarrassed of your contradictions.....then nobody is putting a gun to your head to post here. Only little pussies bitch and complain like you do. If you want to post here again, you must present an argument.

Having said that,.... your posts WILL continue to be used as fine examples of how to refute these often-parroted Andre-type of arguments. I hope you don’t mind, Andre, but I have also printed some of your comments and used them as supplementary material for the classes I teach. They’re awesome learning material for my students and I thank you for giving me a real life example of a primitive thinker to showcase in my classes.

Sorry, but when you post here, it becomes publicly accessible to anyone on the net, and possibly teaching material for my students. That’s why David Huisjen, David Allen and Joegen Baclor are too embarrassed to post their contradictory crap here.....they’re little girls, not men!

• monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

“Seriously though? Are you functionally retarded? Please leave me out of your lame-ass posts .... Or at least have the integrity to whip me, instead of claiming to do so. "

This reminds me of a fight I saw once, where the looser was laying on the ground all broken and bloody, still mouthing off, "You think you got me whipped? You haven't whipped me....."

I was laughing too hard to hear the rest of it.

"You are the reason I can't stand people and make a point of NOT engaging them."

Guess he's making the point that he would never talk shit like this to someone's face, just hiding behind a computer.

"How the fuck do you look yourself in the mirror? Oh, that's right ..... money. You disgust me ...."

Interesting, you always offer large sums of money to people to refute your claims, and even have the integrity to offer to take down any Hub that isn't a rational explanation.

I didn't know you were getting paid for this Fatfist. Where do I send the money? Whatever they're paying is not enough!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

Why a forest is not an object:

An object, as recognized by you, is clearly dilineated. It has a boundary. A forest does not have a boundary. The shape of the group of trees may qualify as a boundary, but what about the roots? Are the roots included in this forest object? Is the ground around the roots included? A forest cannot Be without the earth is stands in, so where do you draw the line? How much of the earth beneath the trees have to be included in this Forest object?

Is an orchard also a forest? What about a grove? What is the difference between a plantation and a forest? Are they all different kinds of objects? They are all groups of trees. Yet, they are not all forests. A forest is a concept. There is no phyisical difference between a forest, a grove, a plantation, and orchard and an arboretum. They are all groups of trees. There is only a conceptual difference.

What about an apple? How do you tell the difference between an apple and a pear? These are clearly dilineated objects, which exist separately from space, but you have the same difficulty in saying what exactly an apple is. That is because 'apple' is also a concept. The difference between an apple and a forest, is that the apple is clearly dilineated. The dividing line is clear. Yet it is also a concept. So why is an apple an object and a forest only a concept?

These are one of your main arguments isn't it? Yet your definition is screwing the distinction up (between objects and concepts), and mine isn't. So why the hell would I support your definition again?

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Forest:

http://www.fopap.org/european_forest.jpg

THIS forest has shape.

http://very-bored.com/pics3/hearts/heart-shaped-fo...

THIS forest has shape too. Lovely, isn't it?

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Andre, ALL words are concepts! Of course, we already understand this much. The question is, what does the word resolve to? Something outside our heads, like that 'thingy' out there we name 'apple'?

If so, then we have resolved the word to an object (that with shape). That's it. We're done. Is this really so hard to understand?

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ScienceOrTripe

Words aren't concepts. They refer to concepts. Words are words.

What does it mean when you say a word 'resolves to' something else? I know what you are trying to say, but I prefer to use 'points to'. Why do you use 'resolve to'? I looked at several definitions of 'resolve to' but none makes sense in the context that you are using the expression.

Some words refer to concepts, and others refer to objects. That is the agreed explanation, right?

This is where I disagree. ALL words point to concepts. Some CONCEPTS are physically realizable, and some are not. The concept 'apple' has a physical manifestation, but the concept 'law' does not.

'Apple' does not HAVE to point to a physical thing though. You use the term in general too, without pointing at a specific instance of 'apple'.

Yes, forests have shapes. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether everything that has shape, is an object. Clearly it is not. Some things have shape without qualifying as an object. That would be things like water, clouds, a shadow a pride of lions and a forest. THIS is the issue here ... smartass.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

I still don't get what you're so confused about.

If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition. That's it, we're done.

Of course words are concepts! What else are they, objects?! Do you bump into words on your way to work?!

Object: that which has shape

Concept: that which does not have shape (quick version)

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

ScienceOffLife

This is what I am confused about: "If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition." That you would suspend your common sense to follow some stupid definition. Bending yourself out of shape, alienating yourself from sane people and basically sounding like a complete idiot ...... For what?

Your definition is INSANE. A forest is NOT an object simply because it has shape. Not all things that have shape are objects. This is so blatantly obvious that I am thoroughly astounded by your determination to prove yourself to be some kind of lowly mental imbicile.

Well done.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

Do you suffer from some kind of childhood trauma? A head injury maybe?

Your whole argument is : An object is that which has shape. This is NOT an argument you twat. This is a definition that you have chosen, and that is so easily refuted it is laughable.

A forest is clearly NOT an object because you cannot point to its boundaries. Yes, the group of trees have a shape. But the shape of the group of trees does NOT involve all that the group of trees are. The moon is seperated from space ON ALL SIDES. What the moon IS is complete within the boundary. Where is the forest-object's lower boundary? When you uproot all the trees and hang them from the crane, it is NOT a forest anymore. How delusional do you have to be to say stupid shit like this?

I am done here. You are an idiot. You have proven it ten times over ....... Good luck with that.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

"That you would suspend your common sense to follow some stupid definition. Bending yourself out of shape, alienating yourself from sane people and basically sounding like a complete idiot ...... For what?"

THIS is the deranged ramblings of a lunatic or drunkard. Try to construct an actual argument of some kind. You're not saying anything meaningful. You keep going round in circles, then getting angry.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ SciOffLife

Yeah, sure .... and here is your argument: "If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition."

Wow!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

“A forest is NOT an object simply because it has shape. Not all things that have shape are objects.”

Why? Why is a forest not an object? You didn’t offer an argument....you just decreed it. Again, you cannot reference anything with shape which is not an object.

“A forest is clearly NOT an object because you cannot point to its boundaries.”

Ok....here, look...I just pointed to this forest’s boundaries.....take your finger out of your butt and do the same:

http://very-bored.com/pics3/hearts/heart-shaped-fo...

Noooooo....I said POINT to the boundaries of the forest....not to put your finger in your mouth!

Your argument has just been “falsified”, Andre, according to your Religion of Mathematical Falsifiability.

“Where is the forest-object's lower boundary? When you uproot all the trees and hang them from the crane, it is NOT a forest anymore.”

A forest is an object whether it’s hanging from a crane or from your head. It has shape. You point to it or illustrate it and give it a NAME.....any name you like.

“The moon is seperated from space ON ALL SIDES. What the moon IS is complete within the boundary. “

So a head on a person is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? So a person’s head is a concept until the day comes when we chop it off?? What a moron!

So a mountain is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!

So a tire on a car is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!

So as long as you hold the beer bottle in your hand, the bottle is not an object because it’s not separated by space all around? And when you place the bottle on the table it’s still not an object? The bottle is only an object when God makes it magically float in the air forever? IS THIS YOUR PROFOUND IDIOCY??

So when your baby was born it wasn’t an object until the doctor handed you the scissors to cut the umbilical chord?? So your wife gave birth to a fu**ing concept?? The instant you cut the chord this concept magically REIFED itself into an object?? THIS IS YOUR STUPID ARGUMENT??? I am going to have a word with your wife, Andre. OMG, wait till she hears this....

See, you are chasing your tail in circles because you try so hard to protect your retarded Religion.

Andre.....you are on YOUR OWN arguing with the mirror.

Your beloved Priests/mentors/sponsors, Bill Allen, Joegen Baclor.....and even your newly-found love, David Aiken, ....all have abandoned you in the Loony Asylum. They have forgotten about you. Even these 3 clowns understand that an object has shape......and that ‘exist’ means “physical presence” i.e. object with location.

No wonder they don’t even attempt to support your stupid idiotic arguments. No wonder they are scared to post here again....they cannot refute the Scientific Definition of OBJECT.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

"If it resolves to a shape, then it's an object by definition."

Exactly!!

All words are lexical concepts. All concepts are necessarily DEFINED. It is impossible to conceive of any word in language without a definition. Here, educate yourself before you continue to flaunt your ignorance:

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

Remember....this ^^^ is the article that shut the mouths of everyone in PIS....including your God, David Huisjen!

An object has meaning BY DEFINITION of the word ‘object’. If you can’t define ‘object’, then you don’t understand what an object is and cannot use the word in any sentence....never ever. Got it?

“Wow!”

Indeed, it’s a wake-up call for you. If you only learned language & grammar in school instead of picking your nose, you wouldn’t be going thru this steeeeeeeeep learning curve.

You are a lone warrior, Andre. Your Priests/mentors/sponsors have all abandoned you in the Loony Asylum after they conceded these 2 formidable definitions that destroy all Religions:

Object: that which has shape

Exist: physical presence; something somewhere; object with location

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

Cool, something I can work with ....

"So a head on a person is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? So a person’s head is a concept until the day comes when we chop it off??"

Nice one. Except in the definition of a head, the neck is not included .... PER DEFINITION. No confusion here.

Which part of the forest is NOT INCLUDED? The roots? The ground? A forest cannot BE a forest if it is NOT in the ground .... PER DEFINITION. So, how much of the ground is included?

"So a mountain is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!"

And again. What constitutes a mountain? How far under the ground does a mountain go? Where does it end? When we talk about about a mountain, we are talking about the bit that sticks out of the ground. When you are talking about a forest, are you only talking about the bits that stick out? There is no confusion here as to what constitutes a mountain.

"So a tire on a car is not an object, according to you, because it is not separated from all sides? Funny!"

Sure, you silly twat. There is no confusion as to where the tire ends and where the rim starts.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the argument regarding the parts that make up the forest. The problem is just that it is irrelevant.

Forest: a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract (Mirriam Webster On-line)

OR : Complex ecosystem in which trees are the dominant life-form. (Concise Encyclopedia)

Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses (Mirriam Webster) = crappy definition

When you perceive a forest, what are you actually looking at? Can you touch a forest? Do I really need to spell this out to you?

Now check this out: Mountain: a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill.

Do you see the lack of 'of' in the definition of a mountain? A forest clearly relates to a collection of things (trees) PER DEFINITION, whereas none of the other things you mention (head, tire, mountain) needs to be defined as a collection of things ......

Why do I have to explain this to you?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

“Except in the definition of a head...”

Stop the press!!!!

You what?? You define a head? You define specific objects in your Religion?

It is impossible to OBJECTIVELY define objects in a Scientific context. Objects are only pointed or illustrated....and given a name. Anything else a human does with an object i.e. attempt to define it, bounce it, love it, hug it.....is all subjective. But you can shut my mouth instantly by defining ‘head’ or ‘coconut’ OBJECTIVELY as requested...LOL, this will be good.

“Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses “

Then per your defn, the Earth and Moon were not objects before life with sensory systems and perception evolved here. Again, your defn fails even basic scrutiny!

“When you perceive a forest, what are you actually looking at? Can you touch a forest?”

Just like a distant star you perceive in the night sky, you cannot touch it. So what? An object is NOT defined as “that which can be touched”. Otherwise that star, Sun, Moon, shark, etc. are not objects according to YOU. Again, your defn fails even basic scrutiny!

“Mountain: a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is higher than a hill.”

LOL!!!

So a mountain is not an object until a human goes there to measure it and compare it to hills, and is conspicuous.... and subjective nonsense like that? What a moron!

See....I told you it is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively define any object in Science. The mountain is not even an object unless a human decrees it to be so, according to you. But it was an object when a meteor hit it before humans evolved here. You contradict yourself. Ha!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

Head: the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain (MW)

"Then per your defn, the Earth and Moon were not objects before life with sensory systems and perception evolved here. Again, your defn fails even basic scrutiny!"

WTF? Who said they were not there before we came along? The definition states "CAN be perceived". This says nothing about existence. It simply says that the object CAN be perceived. Cannot be perceived by the senses = NOT an object. Not hard isit?

You cannot define ANYTHING objectively in the way you use the term. Since YOU must define it using concepts YOU need to be able to understand and experience. Not brain surgery.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

“Head: the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain (MW)”

Again, this is subjective to an observer who differentiates upper/lower, anterior, front, back, etc. with direction/cardinatily, relation/association. There is no direction front or back to the universe. Furthermore, there are plenty of living objects having heads, but no brains.....like certain marine bacteria, cells, plants, etc. There are also non-living objects with heads.....go check out Easter Island.

The point is: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBJECTIVELY DEFINE ANY OBJECT. You can at best describe it subjectively using your sensory system and your biases of “oughts” and “purposes” and other associations.

There are only objects in reality. These objects only participate in events. It is events/actions (dynamic relations) or static relations which we conceive of and define. Objects have NO meanings or purposes. Only Religion ascribes meanings and purposes to objects...i.e. God is life, love, redemption, the father, son and holy ghost located up in Heaven.

Objects are what you point to or illustrate. Then use them as actors in your theory to explain a phenomenon....i.e. the head (of a human, statue, plant, bacteria, sperm....whatever) separated because......blah blah.

Whatever parts (brains, cells, etc.) the object consists of is irrelevant to the instant theory. If a theory has to do with brains....then the ‘brain’ is the actor of that theory....NOT the head!

Andre......you have no clue about the Scientific Method.

“You cannot define ANYTHING objectively “

Exactly! No thing can be defined objectively. It must be described using the observer’s sensory system, biases, purpose, subjectivity, relations/associations, etc.

“WTF? Who said they were not there before we came along?”

You did! Read again: “Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses “

'something' AND 'material' are synonyms for OBJECT. Your def is also circular.

“The definition states "CAN be perceived"

The word PERCEIVE is an action that necessitates a living observer!!!!!!!

Without living observer to see/touch = NO PERCEPTION = Moon does NOT exist.

The existence of the Moon is dependent on the invocation of “perception” via some living entity. How can you possibly not understand this??

• El Dude 4 years ago

This Andre has to be the biggest moron I've ever seen. He can't even grasp what an object is. How does this guy tie his shoelaces in the morning? With magical concepts?!

Spoooooky!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Well, Dude.....he is really pissed because the Scientific definition of object & exist destroy his whole Religion of Mathematics. So he is obligated to troll here and do his best to convince everyone otherwise. He is no different than a Jehovah’s Witness who trolls around the neighborhood.

What’s shocking is that he alleges objects have some Grand Cosmic Meaning to them; i.e. heads must have a brain....hands must have arms with elbows....and other nonsense.

Who gave objects meaning....God?

But the funny thing is: just ask any of these clowns to define spacetime, time, 0D particle, energy, force, field, event horizon, quantum fluctuation, wave, wavicle, time dilation, warped space, etc.......and they get extremely offended and angry. But they have no problem coming here to define heads, apples, chairs, coconuts, chewing gum, etc.

Andre....

Objects have NO inherent meanings in the Universe. Did God give meaning to a planet, a flower, a human, a rock? When you give meanings to objects, like a bananas, then you end up looking like an idiot...no different than Banana-Man Ray Comfort. Did we already forget about this fanatic looney from a few years ago?

You don't understand the alleged “meaning” of an object, you just visualize the entity. The object is that which you see before you, taken purely at face value without any subjective relations, comparisons or assumptions. Any mental relation or comparisons you make of the head to a brain we refer to as "understanding". This (understanding/comparison) is not what you point at; it’s not ‘the’ head. The object ‘head’ is what you point at....and is devoid of any meaning.

An object has a single property: shape. In a Scientific Hypothesis we don't define objects. We illustrate them or at best “describe” their attributes that will be referenced by the Theory. Before you describe a chair, before you tell the ET what a chair is used for, how it was built, why you made it or what it is made of or how it moves, you must point to it and say "chair". Now you can use the chair as an ACTOR in your Theory to explain WHY the victim died with blunt trauma to the head.

• Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

Jesus, Fatfist, I thought Andre broke camp and headed home weeks ago! The fishin' must have been worse elsewhere, I guess...

• PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Otium, .....ha, well Andre has great ills....great pains. The only thing I can do to make him feel better is to delete this article. He won't ever listen to reason though. These type of personalities were born to chase their tails in circles forever. All his buddies in the Philosophy forums abandoned this deranged lunatic. Nobody will come by to help make his case for him because Andre doesn't have any arguments, except to say:

“Umm, duh...an object MUST be separated by space all around it in order to be an object....oh, umm...but wait a sec....a head doesn’t need to be separated by space all around because we can define a head to be an object.”

Tires on a car aren't separated by space all around, so they aren't objects according to Andre. Neither is the baby Andre's wife gave birth to. But when Andre cut the umbelical chord....POOF....the concept baby surreptitiously materialized into an object in a single frame of the Universal Movie (i.e. in ZERO TIME). Talk about God's Creation!

I mean WOW!!!! Incredible lunacy. I can’t remember the last time I’ve encountered such stupidity.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

How many guys to you have to send out off the bathroom when you want to take a dump? They are comin out your arse there mate.

Well done genius. While you were playing with 'head' you made my point that definitions are arbitrary and dependent on the person that defines, rather than on what is being defined.

Are you hysterically blind again? Look at this definition again:

Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses.

'May be' implies that this something may NOT be perceived at certain times. Implying that it is still there even though it is NOT being perceived. It is however POSSIBLE to perceive it. That is what 'may be' SAYS. What it suggests/implies is that the object is still there even if NOT perceived.

Calm down Fatfist. Your hysterics is making you look stupid ..... again.

You get it now? If something is perceivable, it can be called an object. The definition does NOT state that something needs to BE perceived to be called an object? Get it? The object exists even if it is not BEING perceived. You feel all snug and comfy now? No-one is trying to make your world disappear.

"Exactly! No thing can be defined objectively. It must be described using the observer’s sensory system, biases, purpose, subjectivity, relations/associations, etc."

Yip, that's what I have been saying. So what are we disagreeing about?

I am curious. Are you living in a Mormon commune and you are the only one with the right to think?

I am not responding to your goons anymore. It is your responsibility to educate them. Not mine.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre Jacobs,

“with 'head' you made my point that definitions are arbitrary and dependent on the person that defines, rather than on what is being defined.”

Exactly, only idiots attempt to define objects, like ‘head’ and ‘banana’. Objects have NO meaning whatsoever. Objects can at best be DESCRIBED. Only CONCEPTS can be defined objectively without invoking an observer. You must have finally read my article:

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

“Object: something material that may be perceived by the senses.”

'something' AND 'material' are synonyms for OBJECT. Your def is circular. Epic fail.

“'May be' implies that this something may NOT be perceived at certain times.”

Then at those times it’s not perceived, it’s NOT an object, as per your defn. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

“Implying that it is still there even though it is NOT being perceived.”

To be an object it MUST be perceived.....otherwise you would have REMOVED the word ‘perceive’ from the defn. Basic reasoning....Ha ha....LOL. too funny!

Andre: “If something is perceivable, it can be called an object. “

Andre: “The definition does NOT state that something needs to BE perceived to be called an object?”

What an idiot. You qualified it with an IF. If perceived....then object! So yes....your defn does indeed state it MUST be perceived. You can’t have it both ways.

“The object exists even if it is not BEING perceived.”

Indeed, perception has NOTHING to do with objecthood or existence. SO PLEASE REMOVE IT FROM YOUR DEFINITION ASAP! It makes your defn subjective. See....even your Priest Bill Allen defined exist as:

Exist: physical presence (object with location)

“Yip, that's what I have been saying. “

Then start saying it.....repeat after me:

Object: that which has shape

Exist: physical presence (an object having location)

"I am not responding to your goons anymore."

Threats won't get you anywhere here.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“How the hell do you define a concept without involving an observer? Please demonstrate.”

Already demonstrated here millions of times....with plenty examples. I already warned you that trolling is banned here. I will no longer allow you to repeat your debunked nonsense ad infinitum. This place cannot be used for your therapy sessions.

“POTENTIAL as in not BEING perceived right now, but if an observer did come along, he/she must be ABLE TO observe it. Clear enough for you?”

If it doesn’t have to be perceived, then you would REMOVE the word ‘perceived’ from your defn. You can’t because it MUST be perceived. You fool nobody! Besides, your defn is circular.

“an object must first EXIST before you can call it an object.”

Trolling!!!

A triangle is an object that doesn’t exist....for the millionth time!

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ Fatfist

Regarding water. I sent Bill Allen a message to find out what he said and why. Will let you know what he says.

I did not claim water is ONLY a concept, since it is not an 'either or' situation. Things are not simply objects OR concepts.

Water is a material substance, but it is not an object. It has physical properties, which makes it a liquid. Air is also not an object, even though it has physical properties. It is a gas. Gasses and liguids are not objects.

You being scientifically minded and all, I thought you knew that.

Light is also not an object, even though it too has physical properties. Is it getting too complicated for you now, or are you still with me on this?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Just tell Bill to get his ass over here and defend his own arguments. I will not play third party "he said she said" messenger games here.

• Andre Jacobs 4 years ago from Gangneung

@ fatfist

What do you mean? You are paying me for this session aren't you? You asked me to come back here. Didn't you?

"If it doesn’t have to be perceived, then you would REMOVE the word ‘perceived’ from your defn. You can’t because it MUST be perceived."

Perceivable ..... *sighs* .... my head hurts. This is kindergarten stuff man. If your friend claims he has a sandwich and you question that he does, and he points to an empty space next to him and says "There it is." IS there a sandwich or not? If you cannot see it, it isn't there, right? He can claim it is there, but you need to look to verify. If I claim unicorns exist, then you will want me to show you one, otherwise ......? Unicorns are NOT perceivable = Unicorns are not objects BECAUSE existence cannot be verified through perception. This is the basis of the scientific method. Among sane people anyway ....

"A triangle is an object that doesn’t exist....for the millionth time!"

Ha ha ha ha .... so you are allowed to troll on your own forum, but I'm not.

A triangle is a shape, NOT an object. An object can be triangular. That wooden thing you call 'a triangle' is actually shorthand for 'piece of wood shaped like a triangle'. Without the wood, there would be no triangle.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Andre,

“If you cannot see it, it isn't there, right? He can claim it is there, but you need to look to verify.”

Wrong! We covered this before and this the last time I will address this:

I cannot see any stars in the Andromeda galaxy. It doesn’t mean a single doesn’t exist there. Nobody is required to verify anything. We don’t verify tables and bananas like they do in Religion. In science existence is a Hypothesis. Phenomenon is a Theory. Go and re-read where I’ve explained this many times. I don’t give a shit if you don’t want to understand it....it’s irrelevant to any argument you make.

“If I claim unicorns exist, then you will want me to show you one, otherwise”

No way, moron!!!!

Only brain-dead morons make claims of existence. In science we HYPOTHESIZE existence. Do not argue about existence here anymore until you learn the Scientific Method inside-out and upside-down. Your post will be instantly deleted!

“Unicorns are NOT perceivable”

Neither are atoms or molecules. So according to your stupid Religion, they don’t exist. Furthermore, since a human is made from atoms and molecules, a human is not perceivable either....ergo, according to you, humans don’t exist. Get lost, Andre!

“A triangle is a shape, NOT an object.”

It is impossible to draw and measure any concept, like shape. Can you draw love? Only objects can be illustrated, measured, etc. You are brain-dead!

“That wooden thing you call 'a triangle'”

That’s not a triangle, you idiot.....that’s a piece of wood, period! Triangles don’t exist.....neither do 2014 Corvettes, but they are still objects which are illustrated, measured, modelled, simulated, etc. Existence has nothing to do with objecthood.

I am done repeating myself a million times.....you are outta here. Ask Bill to come here if he has anything new to offer.

• Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

Thanks Andre! I really enjoy these opportunities to watch fatfist chew you up and spit you out.

• ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

I think Andre has serious learning difficulties. Maybe he's been told his whole life that he's 'special'.

• Pete Wolfe 4 years ago from NJ

Wow, alot of comments. Interesting article though, thanks.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Thanks for reading the article, Pete..

• Ricardius 4 years ago

Even though Andre's arguments became repetitive after a while, I'm glad that we have religious idiots out there like him to bring up these issues. I feel like I've learned quite a bit by reading these comments. Thanks Fatfist!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Thank you for reading this boring stuff, Ricardius. Most people come here only to read the title and get the sudden epiphany to argue against it without understanding the underlying issues.

• El Dude 4 years ago

Watch how the people at Freedomainradio bully this guy just because he asks a few questions about physics.

What a bunch of intellectual cowards. They are the epitome of a cult.

• El Dude 4 years ago

First question these "free thinkers" ask is:

'What exactly is your scientific background?'

Haha! Amazing. They are incapable of thinking about each point rationally.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Yeah, that's Mike Hutner educating Molyneux's brain-dead robots on the basics of Physics. Molyneux's Cult prides itself on being experts in logic, thinking and critical reasoning. But these religious half-wits don't even see their glaring contradictions: Fallacy of Authority & Popularity....just to name a few.

• El Dude 4 years ago

Poor guy's all alone against the mob too, but the site doesn't let me register (or maybe they blocked me already as I had an anon ID once).

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Mike is a big boy. He did a good job justifying his argument.

Yeah, the Molyneux Cult is known for banning the IP's of those who can refute their dogma.

• confuscience 4 years ago

I understand the definition of object : that which has shape; spacial separation.

In the comments section, I have seen various examples or illustrations of what some people think are objects and what some people think are not objects.

One of the referents used is a 'pride of lions'. How is this group of lions an objects? If we did the same Single Object Universe philosophical thought experiment...

(...and on this subject, I happen to agree with Andre; thought experiment is the means by which we use our imagination to determine the nature of something, under conditions we cannot replicate in the world)

... but expanded the number of objects to qualify as a 'pride of lions', say, for argument's sake, let the number be 5 lions, then I do not think a 'pride of lions' is an object, but distinct objects spatially separated from one another by nothingness.

The same can be said of a 'forest' in the Finite Object Universe, as well as galaxies, the solar system, and any other group of distinct objects that COULD be spatially separated by nothingness.

I think these, and any other groups, might be better described as concepts, just as the universe is a concept based in the definition of 'all objects and space (nothingness)'.

Another set of examples used in the comments section was that of 'heads' and 'mountains' as objects. Aren't these descriptions of PARTS of objects, subjective in that they are merely designating particular areas (compositions) of a larger object? Aren't 'heads' part of a larger body? Aren't 'mountains' part of a larger land mass?

I'm just wondering what thoughts we might have concerning how these examples fit into their best definitions...

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“for argument's sake, let the number be 5 lions, then I do not think a 'pride of lions' is an object, but distinct objects spatially separated from one another by nothingness.”

It’s the same scenario with atoms….. say we have N atoms. All atoms have space between them. Then isn’t that composition an object that we treat as a single entity for the purposes of our theory?

What is important to understand is that an object is used to explain a phenomenon in your theory. Your theory will treat YOUR hypothesized object as a single piece.

For example, did a car collide with another car or did atoms collide? Do insurance adjusters and police officers come out to measure collisions between individual atoms or cars?

In similar fashion, did the plane collide in the forest (an object), cutting that object in half, or did it collide with individual trees or atoms. Will the insurance adjuster come out to look at how the plane hit individual trees or atoms in order to assess what happened, or will he report that the plane crashed and cut through the forest?

You can point to that collection of trees with shape and call it ‘forest’. That is an entity for the purposes of your theory. If your theory is about how the skier died, then the ‘tree’ is your hypothesis and a collision is your theory. Similarly, you can point to that collection of lions and call it ‘pride’ or ‘pack’ or 'X' or whatever. Now you can explain why that small suspended bridge in the jungle collapsed as this pack/pride was on it and collapsed it. This is our entity in the center of our theory….not ‘a’ lion. Science deals with the entity in question that mediates the phenomenon. If you are going to compare a pack of wolves to a pride of lions, then yes, you are comparing concepts (i.e. categories). But categories don’t perform actions. Perhaps ‘a’ lion killed a tourist….but that is another theory with another object in the center of that specific theory.

Names are irrelevant. People are hung up on names and missing the point of the scientific method entirely.

• confuscience 4 years ago

Thanks for the quick response, FF.

"In similar fashion, did the plane collide in the forest (an object), cutting that object in half, or did it collide with individual trees or atoms... Science deals with the entity in question that mediates the phenomenon."

I think I got it!

"If you are going to compare a pack of wolves to a pride of lions, then yes, you are comparing concepts (i.e. categories)."

Fuck me, just lost it...

So just comparing the pack and pride would be comparing concepts (categories), as long as we are not using them to explain any phenomenon. But when we are attempting to explain an interaction, the pride is now an object. And this would not be reification because we would not change the concept into an object WITHIN the explanation, right?

And also, just for clarification, the image of an elephant on a computer screen is a hypothetical object, like a triangle or circle on a piece of paper?...

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“So just comparing the pack of wolves and pride of lions would be comparing concepts (categories), as long as we are not using them to explain any phenomenon.”

In Physics, an object is your exhibit in your Hypothesis which will be an actor in your Theory. The only requirement for a valid exhibit is shape. All matter nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET (visiting us from another world) does not yet know whether butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word. We can later discuss that the butter is made of molecules, at which point we are making use of THE WORD ‘butter’ as a concept (for relational purposes), and introduced a new object called ‘molecule’. In this new context, we can only refer to the “concept” butter which is now a ‘relation’ between specific molecular objects....because the ET is now only dealing with the ‘molecule’ object at the center of his exhibit. Remember, relations are concepts.

The subject of our discussion in the present context is a category. The category is used for relationship purposes. In this sense, our usage of the terms ‘pack’ and ‘pride’ are concepts. Remember, words are labels. Labels don’t establish meanings; only definitions and contexts do. But labels must be used consistently in your theory. A ‘pride’ cannot be a concept and an object in your theory.

There is also a contrast between categorical concepts and abstract concepts like spacetime, energy, time, 0D particle, 1D string, black hole, Higgs Boson, dark matter, dark energy, waves, wavicles, etc. These are not categories. They are pure abstractions.

“But when we are attempting to explain an interaction, the pride is now an object.”

Now we have a composition (aggregate entity), NOT a relation. We illustrate it in our hypothesis as an object…it has shape and a surface and is treated as a SINGLE PIECE. Why do we do this? Because we will explain how this single piece knocked down that bridge. Again, names are irrelevant. Call it ‘X’ if you like. Similar case is air, as in atmosphere. It is a composition of molecules. But is ‘air’ a concept if you will explain in your Theory how the roof was blown off a house in a storm?

“And this would not be reification because we would not change the concept into an object WITHIN the explanation, right?”

An object is what you illustrate and name in your Hypothesis. It is used in your Theory to explain a phenomenon. It is never treated as a concept. And a concept is never treated as an object. Consistency is the key here.

“the image of an elephant on a computer screen is a hypothetical object, like a triangle or circle on a piece of paper?”

For the purposes of ‘objecthood’, they are objects. They have shape. They are the subject of our discussion, can be illustrated, measured, related, etc.

For the purposes of ‘existence’, the elephant on the screen is an object which doesn’t exist (although an elephant "out there" can exist if it has location)…..and the circle & triangle are abstract objects which are impossible to exist as it is impossible for them to have location.

• confuscience 4 years ago

Once again, Fattie, the girth of your penetrating explanations are enough to make any woman moan... just remember, if she can walk to the kitchen afterwards, you don't deserve a sandwich.

"..and the circle & triangle are abstract objects which are impossible to exist."

One more quick tidbit, are abstract objects impossible by their definitions? i.e. circle : TWO-dimensional geometric shape, whose center is equa-distant to its sides... In other words, a circle by definition has no width, and therefore impossible to exist in the universe?

Thanks again for setting the record straight. I was thinking 'once an object, always an object.'

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“Fattie, the girth of your penetrating XXXXX … enough to make any woman moan”

Sadly, this is all women know me for…Ha!

“ are abstract objects impossible by their definitions?”

Yes….and by the fact that we can reason that they can’t have location. A circle is an object we can illustrate. The ink exists….the paper exists….but the circle can’t exist. The circle and the square are conceptually 2D. Only 3D objects can possibly exist. Not all 3D objects can exist though. For example, the 3D cube cannot exist. This is an ideal cube with purely straight edges and purely 90-degree angles....as defined. No such monsters are possible in reality. Reality builds all its objects with atoms…..little imperfect objects.

Similarly, 3D Superman cannot exist. But Superman is an object….we watch him fly in movies and perform contradictory feats of strength.

The Devil’s advocate can cut a circular-shaped object, claim it’s a circle….and build a box, and claim it’s a cube. Now he claims they have location. But these are not the ideal 2D and 3D objects they are DEFINED to be. You cannot even build anything 2D.....anything perfectly circular....or anything perfectly straight.

Hope this helps. You’re welcome.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Hi Brett O'Donnell,

There is word going around that you have contradicted the definition of 'object'. If that's that case, I would like to humbly take this opportunity to congratulate you and remove this obviously-refuted article from the Internet.

Before I take other people's words for granted, can you please post your refutation here for the record?

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

What is an object? You say object=that which has shape, but there is no object, only concepts.

Objects and reality are both concepts.

A shape is only an appearance of a thing. It is all illusion.

Appearence=mental image - Concepts=mental image

When you label a object or something as an object, what are you doing? It is conceptualizing. You are relying on a picture of nothing at all and deciding "this is a TV". There is really not a thing, but your concept based on appearances decides there is. There is no object and concept, there is only one, and that is concept. Can you imagine an 'object' without concept? It's impossible.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

John,

“ but there is no object, only concepts.”

Whoa!!! Hold it right there!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you mean by OBJECT and CONCEPT?????

OBJECT:_________

CONCEPT:________

So…..There’s no objects, John? Your mum gave birth to a concept and decided to name it “John”? Is that what your Pastor told you every Sunday, and you memorized it by rote?

.

“Objects and reality are both concepts.”

As words, ‘object’ and ‘reality/existence’ are concepts, as ALL words are syntactically concepts we call “lexical concepts”. But during the phase of contextual grammar, some words will resolve as labels pointing to their referents which are OBJECTS. We place all those words in the dictionary under the category of OBJECT….the rest go under the category of CONCEPT. Linguistics 101.

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

.

“shape is only an appearance of a thing. It is all illusion.”

Perhaps yo momma was drunk or high on Carbon Monoxide when she had you. The shape of your body which caused her pain as it came out of her was just an illusion? Can you look her in the eye (an object) and tell her that in her face (an object)?

Shape is the only intrinsic property of an object. All objects have this property before any idiotic human ape decides to get high on recreational substances and decree himself as an OBSERVER of sorts. Reality is observer-independent. The Moon has shape before you decide to decree yourself as God and give any opinion on the issue.

Here…..educate yourself….

https://hubpages.com/education/Physics-What-is-SHA...

.

“Appearence=mental image”

Exactly! The term ‘imagine’ stems from ‘image’ which necessarily invokes shape and visualization. We have the naturally inherent capacity to imagine objects – any object! In Physics, “to imagine” means “to visualize" an object; specifically, an object that will be used as a mediator in, say, our Theory of Light for example.

.

“Concepts=mental image”

Nonsense! Concepts are not imagined….they are “conceptualized”; i.e. related! Learn the difference. You cannot visualize a concept….you cannot illustrate love, justice, virtue, government. You cannot illustrate them. There is no way to form a mental image of any concept. You can only form a mental image of an OBJECT. A minimum of 2 objects are required to conceptualize any concept….like love for example. Philosophy & Linguistics 101. Get a basic education!

.

“When you label a object or something as an object, what are you doing? It is conceptualizing. “

Bingo! Jesus has finally blessed you! Praise the Lord!! I see that all those years you spent in Church weren’t a complete waste after all…..

.

“You are relying on a picture of nothing at all and deciding "this is a TV"

Nothing: that which lacks shape.

A TV has shape….it’s an object. We can point at it and illustrate it. We have something before us. We don’t have nothingness before us. We point to and name all objects. We relate objects in order to define concepts. Learn the basics of language so you don’t chase your tail in circles spewing nonsense….or otherwise visit an ophthalmologist so he can help you see that TV in front of you and that 800 lb gorilla in the room.

.

“There is no object and concept, there is only one, and that is concept.”

All concepts are predicated on objects. Impossible to establish a relation (i.e. concept) without a minimum of TWO objects. Without objects, there can be no concepts related and defined. Learn the basics!

.

“Can you imagine an 'object' without concept? It's impossible.”

All objects are imagined. Objects precede concepts. It’s impossible to imagine a concept!

All objects are imagined because we form a mental image of them and thus, can illustrate them. We learn this on the first day we are born.

To IMAGINE means to form a mental IMAGE, thus, necessarily invoking the term SHAPE!

Take a Kindergarten 101 course so you can play with shape blocks and learn the basics, ok?

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

Okay...

"As words, ‘object’ and ‘reality/existence’ are concepts, as ALL words are syntactically concepts we call “lexical concepts”. But during the phase of contextual grammar, some words will resolve as labels pointing to their referents which are OBJECTS. We place all those words in the dictionary under the category of OBJECT….the rest go under the category of CONCEPT. Linguistics 101.

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects."

Exactly, all words are lexical concepts. Objects, things, shape, form, and reality are concepts. They are nothing but words.

And being words, they are illusions. And object is nothing because for it to be something it has to be independent of anything. When someone tells me, "look at this" in canadian, I can't understand because the words are meaningless. If words had meaning then definitions wouldn't be circular and they would be understood independent of concepts for them. This is how objects work, they are just like words because that is the only thing that makes them real to humans. A 'real' object is meaningless it is nothing. That is why I say there is only concepts.

"All objects are imagined. Objects precede concepts. It’s impossible to imagine a concept!

All objects are imagined because we form a mental image of them and thus, can illustrate them. We learn this on the first day we are born.

To IMAGINE means to form a mental IMAGE, thus, necessarily invoking the term SHAPE!

Take a Kindergarten 101 course so you can play with shape blocks and learn the basics, ok?"

Then it is impossible to imagine an object because objects are necessarily concepts or they become not anything. The first conceptualizing of object is from duality, and object is defined by what it is in relation to. There is no object that has no relation, because without relation an object is nothing.

For example, you have a ball what makes the ball an object? Is it shape? What is shape? Shape is appearance. What is appearance? Appearance is coming to exist. It comes to exist because it is conceptualized to it's relation. The ball exist because of its relation to what it is not. What I mean is there is the bottom of the ball, the top, the sides, and the environment the ball is in. It is all relations. Without conceptualizing the ball, the ball is indistinguishable from what it is not, hence not anything. The ball is illusion.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“Exactly, all words are lexical concepts. “

Bingo!

“Objects, things, shape, form, and reality are concepts. They are nothing but words.”

Ahhhh….but now you are confusing the word with the REFERENT that is out there, like the Moon. The word “Moon” is a label, a lexical concept. What this label refers to, out there above us, is what falls under our category of OBJECT. I mean, what is out there is not a conceptual relation, it is a thing. The 2 categories of words are objects & concepts. Both are defined.

.

“And being words, they are illusions.”

Again, words are concepts. Illusions are images our brain adds to our field of vision despite the input received from our eyes. You don’t understand the diff between the two.

.

“And object is nothing because for it to be something it has to be independent of anything.”

Nope! Impossible for an object to be independent. All objects are dependent to their background. There is never any absolutelness when it comes to objects, even for a single object in the universe.

.

“A 'real' object is meaningless”

All objects are meaningless. Only concepts have meaning. Philosophy & Linguistics 101.

“Then it is impossible to imagine an object because objects are necessarily concepts or they become not anything.”

You are pissing outside the pot. You obviously imagined that computer you used to type that sentence. Your brain takes input from your sensory system (eyes) and images objects for you. That’s how you can move your limbs in space and touch objects. Biology 101.

.

“There is no object that has no relation, because without relation an object is nothing.”

Yes, you are close…but….even “nothing” is a concept and relation. There is no word you can utter that isn’t a relation. And some of those words resolve to a referent (an object).

.

“For example, you have a ball what makes the ball an object? Is it shape?”

You used the word “ball” to point at “something”, just like all the other “somethings”. Your brain discerned that something from its background. Shape was the criterion your brain used to do this. Obviously we have to define this “something” (i.e. object) category. The ball falls under a category of words we call object.

.

“What is shape?”

Right here….in all its detail….

https://hubpages.com/education/Physics-What-is-SHA...

.

“Shape is appearance. “

Wrong. There are no observers in reality. The moon requires no observer to be an object distinct from the Earth. Obviously “shape” is an observer-independent property that all objects have. It’s all in the article in xtreme detail ^^^^^^^

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"Ahhhh….but now you are confusing the word with the REFERENT that is out there, like the Moon. The word “Moon” is a label, a lexical concept. What this label refers to, out there above us, is what falls under our category of OBJECT. I mean, what is out there is not a conceptual relation, it is a thing. The 2 categories of words are objects & concepts. Both are defined."

That is an reification of thing. "What is out there is" a "thing" is a conceptual relation. Things are defined solely by their relations. Things exist and are finite because of relation. The 'referent' is circular, it is what a word stands for. The referent is actually just conceptual as well. The referent is dependent on concept to be anything. If things were absolute they would not be things. Things can not be absolute they are relative, they must have relation.

“And being words, they are illusions.”

"Again, words are concepts. Illusions are images our brain adds to our field of vision despite the input received from our eyes. You don’t understand the diff between the two."

It is analogical. Illusions how I am using, is that they are artificial/delusional.

"Nope! Impossible for an object to be independent. All objects are dependent to their background. There is never any absolutelness when it comes to objects, even for a single object in the universe.

My point exactly. Objects are conceptual, dependent on relation. Without relation they are not anything. Objects are not ultimately real.

"All objects are meaningless. Only concepts have meaning. Philosophy & Linguistics 101."

If objects are meaningless then they would have to be absolute, they cannot be. They have to be conceptual. Objects meaning come from their relations. "All objects are meaningless" is contradictory.

"You are pissing outside the pot. You obviously imagined that computer you used to type that sentence. Your brain takes input from your sensory system (eyes) and images objects for you. That’s how you can move your limbs in space and touch objects. Biology 101."

That was the conclusion you made when you said "concepts can't be imagined". Objects are concepts, they are dependent on relation. There is no objects or concepts, just concept.

"Yes, you are close…but….even “nothing” is a concept and relation. There is no word you can utter that isn’t a relation. And some of those words resolve to a referent (an object)."

Yes nothing is a concept. It is just in contrast to something. Something can only be something if there is nothing (space). The human brain thinks in duality, but they are not ultimately real.

“What is shape?”

"Right here….in all its detail….

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Physics-What-is-SH...

Your explanation actually points to objects dependency on observer, RELATION. Something without observer dependency is not a referent and has no relation. It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist. Draw a circle on a piece of paper, is it a concept, or independent.

"Wrong. There are no observers in reality. The moon requires no observer to be an object distinct from the Earth. Obviously “shape” is an observer-independent property that all objects have. It’s all in the article in xtreme detail ^^^^^^^"

Existence is observer dependent. There are no observers in reality is right. Reality, that which is ultimate, is not an object, it has no relation and is unchangeable. The moon is not ultimately real if it has shape (relation). Appearances exist as what observers conceptualize as parts of reality. The delusion of observers and objects are that they are inherently real.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“The referent is dependent on concept to be anything”

So the Moon is dependent on a human to make a conceptual relation for it to be a moon? Nice Religion you got there. Keep kicking the ball around.

.

“If things were absolute they would not be things. Things can not be absolute they are relative, they must have relation.”

Absolute: without dependencies or relations.

Conceptual relations are only created by man. Nature has none. Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space, irrespective of YOU evolving to identify this natural dependency and use a word (a conceptual relation) to name & define it (i.e. shape). You are not special…..sorry!

.

“Objects are conceptual, dependent on relation”

Conceptual relations are only created by man. Nature has none. Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space, irrespective of YOU evolving to identify this dependency and use a word (a conceptual relation) to name & define it (i.e. shape). You are not special…..sorry!

You are just kicking a ball around. Do you like football?

.

“Your explanation actually points to objects dependency on observer, RELATION. “

Nope, it doesn’t. This is your strawman because you still don’t understand what a concept it. Here, educate yourself…

https://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lan...

.

“It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist. “

Go tell the Moon that it needs YOU to exist….and that when you die, the Moon vanishes into the void. Care to explain how the Moon gains L,W and H the instant you look at it….and loses L,W and H when you look away? Please explain the mechanics of this process.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"So the Moon is dependent on a human to make a conceptual relation for it to be a moon? Nice Religion you got there. Keep kicking the ball around."

So the Moon is independent on a human to make a conceptual relation for it to be a moon? Nice Rhetoric you got there. Keep kicking the ball around.

"Absolute: without dependencies or relations."

No 'thing' is absolute.

"Conceptual relations are only created by man. Nature has none."

'Reality' has no relations and is not dependent on anything. Reality is boundless.

"Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space"

Yes they do, but nature is not a brain, it can't make relations or dependencies.

"irrespective of YOU evolving to identify this natural dependency and use a word (a conceptual relation) to name & define it (i.e. shape). You are not special…..sorry!"

There can't be a natural dependency. Reality just IS! YOU evolved and decided that reality was objects. Nobody is special, you, the moon, and every other thing are a part of reality, not separate.

"Nope, it doesn’t. This is your strawman because you still don’t understand what a concept it. Here, educate yourself…"

Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. You are assuming objects are inherently real!

"Go tell the Moon that it needs YOU to exist….and that when you die, the Moon vanishes into the void."

Existence is a finite concept. Reality is not finite! I never said the moon needs me to be! The moon is a part of reality, reality just IS. Reality doesn't need anything, however the moon itself is not inherently real!

" Care to explain how the Moon gains L,W and H the instant you look at it….and loses L,W and H when you look away? Please explain the mechanics of this process."

L,W and H are conceptual! The 'moon' doesn't gain or lose anything, they are relational dependencies! You can't have top without bottom! Humans evolved to think in duality and can only think in duality, humans did not evolve to be aware of what is ultimately real. It is natural for humanity and other animals to unconsciously assume objects. Draw a square on a piece of paper, do you have to consciously think "top, bottom, side, side" - or is it autonomic in your brain just like it is autonomic to beat your heart?

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“No 'thing' is absolute.”

Indeed, there are no absolute things.

Fat: "Objects in nature have a dependency to their background of space"

John: “Yes they do, but nature is not a brain, it can't make relations or dependencies.”

We relate what the background of space encloses and identify the relation we term object. Without any humans to identify this scenario, relate it and name it……an object still depends on space. If there was no space there would be no objects and no universe. Objects depend on space by their intrinsic property: shape. There is no brain requirement to relate anything. Brains come afterwards to identify, imagine, conceptualize, name and define rationally.

You confuse how humans conceptualize and define words with what is out there. This is all you’ve been doing. Yawn.

.

“YOU evolved and decided that reality was objects.”

You evolved, identified what I said above….and called it ‘object’. The Earth was already moving around the Sun before you evolved. Again…you are not special. You don’t invent reality….you imagine, conceptualize, hypothesize and explain. Again, you confuse how humans define words with what is out there. It's getting old.

.

“Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. “

You haven’t justified this statement. And you can’t.

.

“Existence is a finite concept”

What is a finite concept?

.

“Reality is not finite!”

Whoa! But you just said that Reality is finite.

Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists.

Yikes!

Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?

.

John: ““It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist. “”

John: “I never said the moon needs me to be!”

You should read what you post. Appearance invokes an observer.

So the Moon needs you to exist. Again…..nice Religion!

.

“L,W and H are conceptual”

…. and a qualitative description of spatial extent in an object’s architecture. Again, you haven’t justified how an object loses its spatial extent, its matter and becomes a 0D nothing when you look away. And how does it gain it back when look at ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is when it ain't there any more. Perhaps its wave-function collapses? Unless you can give the details ….your Religion is worthless.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"We relate what the background of space encloses and identify the relation we term object. Without any humans to identify this scenario, relate it and name it……an object still depends on space."

Objects cannot be both be intrinsically real and dependent on space! Space is a concept! Space does not exist(in contrast to objects.) and is dependent on relation!

"If there was no space there would be no objects and no universe."

Because they are all formed by duality! Space - concept, Object - concept. They are dependent on relation.

What is the universe? All existing things and space. What does that tell you? Wake up!

There is no space and object- rather, space and object are just concepts for different portions of the universe!

"There is no brain requirement to relate anything."

Really? Tell me how an object relates itself and makes duality without a brain. What does it do? How does it relate? Does the object relate other objects? How does it do this? Does it have some brainless consciousness? It's just a "no brainer", huh?

"Brains come afterwards to identify, imagine, conceptualize, name and define rationally."

So... Things just relate things... and then brains come and do it again?

"You confuse how humans conceptualize and define words with what is out there. This is all you’ve been doing. Yawn."

What! That's funny.

Please tell me, what is out there that you and only you have been revealed without concept? Objects? Relating by themselves and having shape and being real in and of themselves outside of reality?

"You evolved, identified what I said above….and called it ‘object’. The Earth was already moving around the Sun before you evolved."

Motion is conceptual! Before I evolved is not reality! Before I evolved is a notion, and it's wrong! "I" never evolved, I am a consequence and a part of human evolution, just like I am a part of reality- not separate!

"Again…you are not special. You don’t invent reality….you imagine, conceptualize, hypothesize and explain. Again, you confuse how humans define words with what is out there. It's getting old."

No thing invents reality! Quote me once claiming to be special and a god who invented reality! I am trapped in reality just like you, I am trapped with a duality brain like you. Man can't see, discover, or find reality, reality is not hiding under a rock, you are in it and a part of it! The most you can try to do is understand reality rationally. Believing you and your objects are not a part of reality is a delusion. Even if you are a brain in a jar (and don't worry everyone is a brain stuck in one called body!) or dreaming, you are trapped in reality without escape! The only thing you can do is try ignore reality with delusion. Reality doesn't care if you ignore it, it won't mold to your beliefs and desires.

"'Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. '

You haven’t justified this statement. And you can’t."

I define god as an infinite, loving, object, that answers my prayers and is real.

If you have any objections to my definition, you haven't justified them and you can't.

However I can justify how you reify objects in your definition and I already have! But since your reification definition of 'concept' is so ingrained into your mind, you fail to see how objects are not real intrinsically (just like the religious refuse to see what's wrong with their definition of god!). Your entire definition of concept revolves completely around objects being real in and of themselves. Can you not see how a object being real inherently is contradictory? You insert the assumption in your definition of concept before rationally justifying it like the definition of god above.

"What is a finite concept?"

All concepts are finite, even the concept of infinity. Concepts involve relation and dependency, true infinity can not be conceptualized.

"What is an infinite concept?"

There can't be. The concept of reality is not reality itself, one cannot conceptualize reality because it is infinite, and one cannot think in non-duality.

"You should read what you post. Appearance invokes an observer.

So the Moon needs you to exist. Again…..nice Religion!"

I said in full:

"Something without observer dependency is not a referent and has no relation. It can't be actually 'something'. Something needs appearance of some kind to exist."

That's not saying the moon, as the portion of reality labelled 'moon', needs me to BE. The moon is a part of reality and reality is independent. However, existence is not reality! Existence is finite, reality is infinite. Things like the moon are conceived, reality is not and can not be conceived.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"…. and a qualitative description of spatial extent in an object’s architecture. Again, you haven’t justified how an object loses its spatial extent, its matter and becomes a 0D nothing when you look away."

It doesn't become nothing! I also never said that.

The objects are things, they can't become nothing.

In reality, they are already nothing even when you conceptualize them.

"And how does it gain it back when look at ‘it’, whatever ‘it’ is when it ain't there any more."

You have your mind on the relative. Reality and it's parts do not change or anything when you look away! Perception: You can not perceive outside when you are in your room. Try it, you will fail.

Objects rely on appearing. Your brain conceptualizes an object autonomically.

"Perhaps its wave-function collapses?"

No, it has nothing to do with that. You yourself are conceptualized! You yourself are a part of reality and are not real inherently!

"Unless you can give the details ….your Religion is worthless."

Frankly, details are worthless, one can give a million details and still not rationally explain. Sadly, when it comes to reality, one has to understand themselves, the most you can do is provoke them.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"Perception: You can not perceive outside when you are in your room. Try it, you will fail."

Scratch that, you cannot perceive anything you can't see.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

Sorry, scrap the entire perception thing, I'm tired. The best way to put it is, you cannot perceive an environment you are not in or looking at.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"Whoa! But you just said that Reality is finite.

Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists."

No, you are confused with ordinary usage. What is real, what is actual, can only be ultimately real. And even if you conflate real and exist, that is still not reality! Existence requires dependency and relation.

"Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?"

I never 'claimed' such or anything. Please quote me saying exactly that.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

“Sorry, scrap the entire perception thing, I'm tired. The best way to put it is, you cannot perceive an environment you are not in or looking at.”

Exactly! Now you’re getting why your whole sermon was worthless. All your sermon about “relations” is your opinion. All relations are invented by humans. Contradictory relations, like the one you asserted are divorced from reality. What you perceive with your limited sensory system is your OPINION and irrelevant to reality. Only in Religion do they perceive and opine. Reality can only be conceptualized without any sensory perceptions and their limitations. In science we Hypothesize objects that will be used as mediators to rationally explain the phenomenon in the Theory stage.

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-INTELLIGEN

“I define god as an infinite, loving, object”

Impossible, such an alleged object cannot have shape and there would be no space....an ontological contradiction. There is no provision for infinite shapeless objects in the definition of object.

Object: that which has shape.

There are no infinite objects….here, learn from your Priests:

“The infinite divisibility of a continuum is an operation which exists only in thought. It is merely an idea which is in fact impugned by the results of our observations of nature and of our physical and chemical experiments. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

.

John: “"'Your definition of concept is defined with a reification of objects. '”

Fat:” You haven’t justified this statement. And you can’t."”

John: “Your entire definition of concept revolves completely around objects being real in and of themselves.”

Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

There is NO provision for an object being real (i.e. existing) in the definition of concept!

Superman is an object. Superman flies wrt the ground in the movie. ‘Fliels’ is a concept. Superman and the ground are objects which don’t exist…i.e. are NOT real. Same goes with a 2030 stealth fighter jet.

Concepts can and do relate objects which don’t exist. This is why we are able to talk about God, leprechauns, Snow White, tribars, squares, triangles, circles, etc. What a stupid moron you are!

.

“Objects cannot be both be intrinsically real and dependent on space!”

For the 10 th time…..nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exist/real: object with location.

The Moon is an object and has location…..hence is real. Without space, the Moon wouldn’t even be an object and wouldn’t exist. Without space, the universe would be an infinite block of matter, which is a contradiction since such a beast cannot have shape.

You can’t define REAL/EXIST and are thus harping on a losing proposition to save your idiotic Religion at all costs. Yawn!

.

“No, you are confused with ordinary usage. “

No! It is YOU who confused into thinking that you can come here to talk about YOUR idiotic Religion! Save your ORDINARY USAGE FOR YOUR PRIEST IN YOUR CHURCH. In Science we define our terms SCIENTIFIALLY, rationally and without contradictions. No poetry, metaphor, etc.!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus and imaginations are certainly REAL to you because your bonehead cannot even define anything!

.

Fat: "What is a finite concept?"

John: “All concepts are finite”

What an idiot!

Fat: "Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?"

Stupid moron John: “I never 'claimed' such or anything. Please quote me saying exactly that.”

Here’s what you said you stupid babbling idiot…..

Stupid moron John: “Existence is a finite”

Stupid moron John: “Reality is not finite!”

Not finite means INFINITE, you idiot! Do you have shit for brains?

Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists. SCIENTIFIC USAGE!!! Your idiotic Religious usage is irrelevant! Go talk to your Priest about it.

You cannot define anything, but yet such a bonehead like you comes here to use words like REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT in ordinary poetic usage without understanding anything and spewing contradictory drivel all over the place. Again…..go have these Religious discussion with your Priest.

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

John,

If you wish to continue arguing your Religious position....you will need to define the terms REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT, FINITE OBJECT, INFINITE OBJECT for the audience. Don't ever use these words in a sentence here again until you define them. I don't have time to converse with that degree of stupid.

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"Exactly! Now you’re getting why your whole sermon was worthless."

What? I corrected my error! I have no 'sermon'! Sermons are religious in nature, your reification of objects is religious!

"All relations are invented by humans" Exactly! Do you understand now? The moon can not invent it's own relations!

"Contradictory relations, like the one you asserted are divorced from reality."

Where? Can you quote where I asserted a contradictory relation? I need to fix this mistake.

"What you perceive with your limited sensory system is your OPINION and irrelevant to reality."

Exactly, objects are perception, not reality.

"Only in Religion do they perceive and opine."

You said it!

"Reality can only be conceptualized without any sensory perceptions and their limitations. In science we Hypothesize objects that will be used as mediators to rationally explain the phenomenon in the Theory stage."

Sure! So what?

"Impossible, such an alleged object cannot have shape and there would be no space....an ontological contradiction. There is no provision for infinite shapeless objects in the definition of object."

Contradiction- Exactly what is found in your definition of concepts. Objects cannot be real in and of themselves!

"Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

There is NO provision for an object being real (i.e. existing) in the definition of concept!"

Then why do you say, and I quote:

"WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING FOUNDATION OF A CONCEPT?

Unlike images that we can visualize of REAL STANDALONE ENTITIES, concepts cannot be visualized as discrete entities. Why? Because they are the result of atomic activity in the brain, not of standalone entities in our environment."

Entity = Object

You assume objects are real standalone entities (real in and of themselves!). Have you justified your claim of real standalone entities that are separate from reality? No! You are reifying objects! Objects are dependent, not standalone!

"Superman is an object. Superman flies wrt the ground in the movie. ‘Fliels’ is a concept. Superman and the ground are objects which don’t exist…i.e. are NOT real. Same goes with a 2030 stealth fighter jet."

All objects, are not real. Some objects are existing finite things, some are purely abstract, they both are not real in and of themselves because it contradicts their very nature!!

"Concepts can and do relate objects which don’t exist. This is why we are able to talk about God, leprechauns, Snow White, tribars, squares, triangles, circles, etc. What a stupid moron you are!"

When did I dispute that? You just want to call names huh?

"The Moon is an object and has location…..hence is real."

The moon exist, but it is not real in and of itself.

"Without space, the Moon wouldn’t even be an object and wouldn’t exist. Without space, the universe would be an infinite block of matter, which is a contradiction since such a beast cannot have shape."

Where do I dispute this?

"You can’t define REAL/EXIST and are thus harping on a losing proposition to save your idiotic Religion at all costs. Yawn!"

Exist: As you said, having locality, it has appearance and is in contrast to it's environment and is finite.

Real: That which is not imagined, is complete, unchangeable, infinite - - otherwise, a constitute of reality.

I can define real and exist.

"No! It is YOU who confused into thinking that you can come here to talk about YOUR idiotic Religion!"

What religion of mine? Who are my followers? Please justify your claims!

I have not "ordinary usage".

"In Science we define our terms SCIENTIFIALLY, rationally and without contradictions. No poetry, metaphor, etc.!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus and imaginations are certainly REAL to you because your bonehead cannot even define anything!"

No thing is real to me. There is no 'real to me'. Jesus is an abstract imagined object! Quote me once saying any thing is real!

"Fat: "What is a finite concept?"

John: “All concepts are finite”

What an idiot!"

Really? Is there some concept you hold that has no relations or dependencies? Even you definition of concept makes all concepts finite!

"Fat: "Also, can you tell us what an infinite concept is, since you now claim that existence is not finite (i.e. infinite)?"

Stupid moron John: “I never 'claimed' such or anything. Please quote me saying exactly that.”

Here’s what you said you stupid babbling idiot…..

Stupid moron John: “Existence is a finite”

Stupid moron John: “Reality is not finite!”"

Oh I'm so scared! You called me names! Did I offend your delusion?

Existence =/= Reality!

Existence: Dependent and finite.

Reality: Independent, infinite.

"Not finite means INFINITE, you idiot! Do you have shit for brains?"

Did I ever say otherwise? Where did I say "not finite doesn't mean infinite". Quote me, I dare yah.

"Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists. SCIENTIFIC USAGE!!! Your idiotic Religious usage is irrelevant! Go talk to your Priest about it."

Science does not claim anything about reality. Reality is CERTAIN, science is uncertain and based on what is probable by empirical evidence in the universe.

"You cannot define anything, but yet such a bonehead like you comes here to use words like REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT in ordinary poetic usage without understanding anything and spewing contradictory drivel all over the place."

Where? Quote my poetry and contradictory drivel so I can correct my mistake! It is impossible for an object to be real in and of itself! If any object where real in and of itself, it would be separate from reality and be independent and have no relations! Objects cannot have such a nature! Objects are not a product of reality, they are a product of human perception. You are so assured by your duality brain that you are blind!

"Again…..go have these Religious discussion with your Priest."

That is an insane rhetoric. Please, your assumptions do not affect reality in anyway, reality doesn't care!

• Johnsesi 4 years ago

"If you wish to continue arguing your Religious position....you will need to define the terms REAL/EXIST, OBJECT and CONCEPT, FINITE OBJECT, INFINITE OBJECT for the audience. Don't ever use these words in a sentence here again until you define them. I don't have time to converse with that degree of stupid."

Infinite object: Impossible (I also never used this word!)

Finite objects: All objects are finite. Finite object is redundant.

Object: I don't have much of a problem with your definition. Objects have shape and are dependent on what they are not to be objects. Objects are finite.

Concept: Unlike your definition which make space not a concept (space is not a relation of two or more objects!) A concept is what has relations and dependency by it's contrast (the concept of space is dependent on things! Up is dependent on down), or mental image and quality. There are no concepts without relation or dependency because all concepts are finite!

• Author

fatfist 4 years ago

Well, now that you gave us your definitions, your whole sermon which invoked these terms is irrational because your definitions are failures. You didn’t understand anything you posted. And here is why…..

“Even you definition of concept makes all concepts finite!”

The term finite is an adjective. It can only be used in the context of objects.

Concepts have no shape or extent, and cannot be qualified by adjectives, like finite and infinite. Linguistics 101.

.

“Existence: Dependent and finite.”

Superman is dependent and finite. So is a tribar, circle, square and that 2020 Corvette. None exist.

Try again!

.

“Reality: Independent, infinite.”

The term ‘infinite’ is an adjective used in the context of objects. You are necessarily invoking an object in your definition by using the term infinite. Again, there are no infinite objects. An alleged infinite object cannot have shape…. no spatial extent, no architecture, etc. Even you stated they are impossible right here…

John: “Infinite object: Impossible”

And you use my definition of object to boot!

John: “Object: I don't have much of a problem with your definition. Objects have shape and are dependent…”

The term ‘infinite’ is like the term ‘absolute’….an oxymoron. It cannot be used rationally in ANY sentence whatsoever!

Try again!

.

“A concept is what has relations and dependency by it's contrast”

1) What is this “WHAT” which has relations? Ambiguous and meaningless!

2) By its contrast to what? What are you contrasting/differentiating? Ambiguous and meaningless!

Your attempt at a definition is meaningless. Try again!

.

“all concepts are finite!”

Again….you are a babbling idiot (I hate repeating myself) who doesn’t understand anything he posts. Only objects can be qualified with the term FINITE. All concepts resolve to a verb; i.e. the relation we conceive between objects. Concepts or verbs are neither finite nor infinite.

.

“I can define real and exist.”

LOL…..yeah…..sure!! Either try defining again your terms REAL, EXIST, CONCEPT or concede that you can’t.

.

“your definition [of concept] which make space not a concept (space is not a relation of two or more objects!)”

The term space is indeed a relation between 2 objects. You don’t understand the difference between objects & concepts…..despite my articles I gave you, which you didn’t even read. So you chase your tail in circles.

A concept is a relation between TWO or more things. Even the terms OBJECT and SPACE are themselves concepts, the former meaning shape and the latter meaning no shape.

Space: that which lacks shape.

The lexical concept “shape” invokes 2 object nouns in its relation.

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Physics-What-is-SH

“the concept of space is dependent on things!”

Exactly what I said…..this term is dependent on things (i.e. objects, entities, somethings, etc.)