This brought to mind the work of the artist Joseph Kosuth's ' One and Three Chairs' in an exhibition called 'Information'...The work displayed a photograph of a chair, a actual wooden chair and a printed dictionary defination of 'chair'. The artists of the Art & Language group seem to have been dealing with these kinds of philosophical problems in the '60s and early '70s. We seem to be capable of receiving information but 'knowledge' is illusive :-)
“A visiting philosopher is said to have wondered aloud: ‘But Professor Austin, what great problems of philosophy are illuminated by these inquiries?’ Austin considered a moment, then replied: ‘Roughly, all of them.’”
Many of these comments are misreading Thomasson. She is not endorsing wild views about objects. She spends 30 minutes setting up wild views only to reject the assumption that underlies them all. She then defends the view that it's just a linguistic problem that too many people get caught up with.
Cool! I came from Vsauce's video but it's really cool to see a lecture based on it. Definitely the best lecture for me, and I'll always visit it. Not boring!
I think this talk was good, and the speaker does agree that they do exist. I'm a physicist and I still find this question interesting, but only in an "how many angels fit on a pin head" kind of way. The Ocam's razor argument saying that it is more likely that there is an error in the argument rather that they don't exist was spot on! The arguments saying why we should worry about this seemed pretty weak to me. They basically boiled down to "because otherwise the world wouldn't be as I want it to be". I wish philosophers would spend more time justifying why should a normal person (not a metaphysics philosopher or a theoretical physicist) care about about this.
Interesting...interesting INDEED. 😄Really, I like her pace. Sometimes a lecture is better than a podcast. I dont lean materialist/reductionist, so my own confirmation bias must be fought. thank you
They also don't want grandeous theories like (consciousness for example) but if philosophers start with the most basic assumptions--- the same reaction 😂
@@outerspection7321 What if we are living in the matrix? Or what if we are living inside some kind of a dream or as a Boltzmann Brain? Will chairs and tables be real then?
Have you watched even the first 5m of this class? And have you understood this? Obvious there is a challnge. Why is saying a certain physical thing is a chair a truth while for, for example my cat, the same physical thing is just a physical surfice like any other.
Thanks for this. Disputes about ordinary objects do open a can of worms. The difference between commonsense perception and what non-Newtonian physics allows opens that dam.
All things exist as a pattern in a mind. All things have a neural correlate. Some things have an external correlate and some things have an external referent. All external things have a unique place in each of the three physical dimensions, time, space, and scale.
@@blbphn When you change something's scale relative to other things, that is a fundamental change in their relationship. Same for relative position in space and time. If you were a light-year away, we couldn't communicate or interact in normal ways. If you were born and died long ago we couldn't communicate or interact in normal ways. Same for scale. Make anything much bigger or smaller and it may as well not exist to you because you can't interact with it at all or only with a small part of it. Same for space and time.
@@blbphn Anything that can be measured specifically relative to something else can be considered a dimension. The amount of left or right you are isn't different than the amount of blue in your hat in this context, they just represent different kinds of dimension.
There isn't a "controversy" at all. Literally everyone believes physical objects do exist. Ask anyone who says otherwise to fall from a tall building. They would never, ever do that.
*"Literally everyone believes physical objects do exist. Ask anyone who says otherwise to fall from a tall building. They would never, ever do that."* First. . . should we trust our naive intuitions regarding the boundaries or formation of 'objects'? You may argue "why not?! Of course we know the extent of objects and there boundaries." However, this is really just an appeal to "I just know, it's obvious, there is my argument." Second, bringing up physicality leads to the definition of physicality itself which is also a thorny discussion. Much more thorny than whether material objects even exist. Third, ask a physicist. With even the most mundane naive assumptions of Mainstream theories put forward that seem to match our everyday experiences they do defy these intuitions. Atomic theory of a simple sort brings in the concept of objects being composed of point objects which then blur the line of where one ends or the other begins. It only get worse if you move on from that sort of Classical thinking to Electromagnetism or Quantum Mechanics where the boundaries literally don't actually stop at the edge. You judge the edge of a "solid object" by its capability of sufficiently restricting deformation but your finger. However, this repulsive influence that you get is then really just subject to your arbitrary psychological/biological precision and the EM field of atoms extend out beyond even this. You don't touch atoms technically. . . you just get a sufficient point of repulsion from which you can really go no farther. Adding in quantum mechanics blurs the line further between atoms and EM fields to the point that the entity you call an 'atom' or its constituents are extended over regions of space off to potentially infinity beyond the object it even composes (their wave-functions). Fourth, a person denying the existence of material objects in the way presented philosophically wouldn't deny you interact with "things". Rather that this psychological invention of yours that there is this thing with STRICT BOUNDARIES exists. Its like looking at this picture (www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imagemagick.org%2Finclude%2Fgradient.php&psig=AOvVaw0ImlkpasOnpJDKOy-wNrvG&ust=1648772215874000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCND2wqWJ7_YCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ). You would say "its obvious there is a strict boundary to it and there is thus a single localized object!" The skeptic would reply that even the parts you regard as the boundary is arbitrarily specified and there may still be grey boxes in what you perceive to be darkness. However, because of your human faculties and range of precision you just couldn't register it. So is that boundary and therefore that object a human psychological invention on top of the actual experience?
Sorry for being vulgar, but this thinking is on a level of getting insights from smoking weed kind of experience. It boils down to there is no chair, its only wood, but iterated and made more fancy... not very useful, and its hypocritical to demand this level of pedantery.. like how do you make this argument and proceed with your life the way you do.. its like insisting on cutting your hair, but not washing your body ever.. I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing.. not sure what else was mentioned.. but the obvious argument would be that no one ever seen the chair outside of his own mind. The fact that two or more minds agree on it, can be considered as asking a thief if he has stolen! Of course we have to live as if the thief did not steal, that is not in question, but the fact that we have to, does not mean that the chair exists.
Thank you for your videos, don't let the comments discourage you! Please keep up the good work. Thanks.
This brought to mind the work of the artist Joseph Kosuth's ' One and Three Chairs' in an exhibition called 'Information'...The work displayed a photograph of a chair, a actual wooden chair and a printed dictionary defination of 'chair'. The artists of the Art & Language group seem to have been dealing with these kinds of philosophical problems in the '60s and early '70s. We seem to be capable of receiving information but 'knowledge' is illusive :-)
“A visiting philosopher is said to have wondered aloud: ‘But Professor Austin, what great problems of philosophy are illuminated by these inquiries?’ Austin considered a moment, then replied: ‘Roughly, all of them.’”
Many of these comments are misreading Thomasson. She is not endorsing wild views about objects. She spends 30 minutes setting up wild views only to reject the assumption that underlies them all. She then defends the view that it's just a linguistic problem that too many people get caught up with.
Cool! I came from Vsauce's video but it's really cool to see a lecture based on it. Definitely the best lecture for me, and I'll always visit it. Not boring!
You should read Popper; it would liberate you from the spell of Wittgenstein that sent the the Vienna Circle down their positivist rabbit hole
this is why the Japanese sit on the floor. they know better!
Chairs will fall during earthquake.
Yeah this “controversy” definitely makes pragmatism more appealing.
I think this talk was good, and the speaker does agree that they do exist. I'm a physicist and I still find this question interesting, but only in an "how many angels fit on a pin head" kind of way.
The Ocam's razor argument saying that it is more likely that there is an error in the argument rather that they don't exist was spot on!
The arguments saying why we should worry about this seemed pretty weak to me. They basically boiled down to "because otherwise the world wouldn't be as I want it to be". I wish philosophers would spend more time justifying why should a normal person (not a metaphysics philosopher or a theoretical physicist) care about about this.
Interesting...interesting INDEED. 😄Really, I like her pace. Sometimes a lecture is better than a podcast. I dont lean materialist/reductionist, so my own confirmation bias must be fought. thank you
INDUBITABLY, SISJAH Harr, Harr, Harr; Freedom !!!
This comment section depresses me
Mee too 😢😢
They also don't want grandeous theories like (consciousness for example) but if philosophers start with the most basic assumptions--- the same reaction 😂
NAYYEA✊🏼
Yes
@@randomsequenceofletters5920 Because people make them.
@@outerspection7321 Is everything people make real?
@@Djdu7228xnxj Don't know. But chairs and tables are.
@@outerspection7321 What if we are living in the matrix? Or what if we are living inside some kind of a dream or as a Boltzmann Brain? Will chairs and tables be real then?
Have you watched even the first 5m of this class? And have you understood this? Obvious there is a challnge. Why is saying a certain physical thing is a chair a truth while for, for example my cat, the same physical thing is just a physical surfice like any other.
Thanks for this. Disputes about ordinary objects do open a can of worms. The difference between commonsense perception and what non-Newtonian physics allows opens that dam.
All things exist as a pattern in a mind. All things have a neural correlate. Some things have an external correlate and some things have an external referent. All external things have a unique place in each of the three physical dimensions, time, space, and scale.
why consider "scale" a dimension?
why consider "scale" a dimension?
@@blbphn When you change something's scale relative to other things, that is a fundamental change in their relationship. Same for relative position in space and time. If you were a light-year away, we couldn't communicate or interact in normal ways. If you were born and died long ago we couldn't communicate or interact in normal ways. Same for scale. Make anything much bigger or smaller and it may as well not exist to you because you can't interact with it at all or only with a small part of it. Same for space and time.
@@blbphn Anything that can be measured specifically relative to something else can be considered a dimension. The amount of left or right you are isn't different than the amount of blue in your hat in this context, they just represent different kinds of dimension.
If they weren’t really we wouldn’t be able to ask the question
Do Unicorns exist
Entertaining discussion for sure, but also goes to show absurd a philosophical discussion can get, if based on faulty premisses or fallacies
There isn't a "controversy" at all. Literally everyone believes physical objects do exist. Ask anyone who says otherwise to fall from a tall building. They would never, ever do that.
Billions of flies don't make mistakes
*"Literally everyone believes physical objects do exist. Ask anyone who says otherwise to fall from a tall building. They would never, ever do that."* First. . . should we trust our naive intuitions regarding the boundaries or formation of 'objects'? You may argue "why not?! Of course we know the extent of objects and there boundaries." However, this is really just an appeal to "I just know, it's obvious, there is my argument."
Second, bringing up physicality leads to the definition of physicality itself which is also a thorny discussion. Much more thorny than whether material objects even exist.
Third, ask a physicist. With even the most mundane naive assumptions of Mainstream theories put forward that seem to match our everyday experiences they do defy these intuitions. Atomic theory of a simple sort brings in the concept of objects being composed of point objects which then blur the line of where one ends or the other begins. It only get worse if you move on from that sort of Classical thinking to Electromagnetism or Quantum Mechanics where the boundaries literally don't actually stop at the edge. You judge the edge of a "solid object" by its capability of sufficiently restricting deformation but your finger. However, this repulsive influence that you get is then really just subject to your arbitrary psychological/biological precision and the EM field of atoms extend out beyond even this. You don't touch atoms technically. . . you just get a sufficient point of repulsion from which you can really go no farther. Adding in quantum mechanics blurs the line further between atoms and EM fields to the point that the entity you call an 'atom' or its constituents are extended over regions of space off to potentially infinity beyond the object it even composes (their wave-functions).
Fourth, a person denying the existence of material objects in the way presented philosophically wouldn't deny you interact with "things". Rather that this psychological invention of yours that there is this thing with STRICT BOUNDARIES exists.
Its like looking at this picture (www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imagemagick.org%2Finclude%2Fgradient.php&psig=AOvVaw0ImlkpasOnpJDKOy-wNrvG&ust=1648772215874000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCND2wqWJ7_YCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ). You would say "its obvious there is a strict boundary to it and there is thus a single localized object!" The skeptic would reply that even the parts you regard as the boundary is arbitrarily specified and there may still be grey boxes in what you perceive to be darkness. However, because of your human faculties and range of precision you just couldn't register it. So is that boundary and therefore that object a human psychological invention on top of the actual experience?
CIA clown folk [or MI
Sorry for being vulgar, but this thinking is on a level of getting insights from smoking weed kind of experience.
It boils down to there is no chair, its only wood, but iterated and made more fancy... not very useful, and its hypocritical to demand this level of pedantery.. like how do you make this argument and proceed with your life the way you do.. its like insisting on cutting your hair, but not washing your body ever..
I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole thing.. not sure what else was mentioned.. but the obvious argument would be that no one ever seen the chair outside of his own mind. The fact that two or more minds agree on it, can be considered as asking a thief if he has stolen! Of course we have to live as if the thief did not steal, that is not in question, but the fact that we have to, does not mean that the chair exists.
the sort of thing that gives philosophy a bad name among serious people
cope
@@filopon7116 you can take "interest" in this twaddle if you want, but you are wasting the only thing you have -- Time. But -- enjoy, fool.
@@findbridge1790 cope
@@filopon7116 enjoy, fool.
@@findbridge1790 cope