Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.object.logic,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Is time continuous?
Message-ID: <1995Mar5.004043.18771@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <1995Feb20.144659.9334@vax.sbu.ac.uk> <MXM.95Feb26034944@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <3iumrp$m8n@btr0x1.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de> <1995Mar1.004312.4558@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3j20h3$hqg@curly.cc.utexas.edu> <1995Mar2.044410.9376@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <snodgras.153.2F583AFD@cts.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 95 00:40:43 GMT
Lines: 61
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27920 comp.object.logic:383 sci.logic:9929 sci.misc:12310 sci.philosophy.tech:16983 sci.physics:112502

In <snodgras.153.2F583AFD@cts.com> snodgras@cts.com (John E. Snodgrass) writes:
>In article <1995Mar2.044410.9376@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) writes:

>[del]
>>I still think it is impossible to support the position that there is something
>>which exists for which there are no perceptual properties.  

>It's reasonable to believe things exist now for which we have no
>perceptual properties because they have before. Who could have conceived
>of Andromeda galaxy or the endoplasmic reticulum in 1400? As we continue
>to discover more and more, are we not gathering evidence that there is yet
>more to discover? I think that's fair. 

Saying that we have not yet perceived the proprties of something is not
the same as saying that the thing does not have perceptual properties.

So far I have heard two argument based on misinterpretations of my
position.

I have claimed that if something is an object, then it must have perceptual
properties.  If have claimed this based on my intuition that we distinguish
things as objects with terms (and we can divide up the space of our 
perceptions many different ways, so there is nothing objective about the
way we happen to catagorize them), so that if something is an object,
then we distinguish it with a term; and, when we create terms in language
we do so based on our experiences and define the applicability of terms
based on experiences as well, so, if something has a term, then it must
be distinguishable by experiences or phenomenological properties.
So, I concluded O -> P, via O -> T and T -> P.

One person brought up things that we have terms for but which don't
correspond to things that exist, such as "unicorns."  This is an
example of (T & ~O), that is, there is a term for something which
does not correspond with an object.  As you can see in my reasoning
above, there is nothing against what I have said in this. It is
logically consistent.  Further, "unicorn" (T) is still understood in
terms of perceptual characteristics (horse-like, one horn, etc) although
those characteristics may not happen to coincide in our actual perceptions.
But, for "unicorn," T -> P still holds.


The second person brought up things which exist but which we haven't
perceived yet.  Whether or not we have perceived something YET did not
enter my argument.  These things are still characterized by phenomenological
characteristics.  Further, although if you asked someone in 1400 about
the endoplasmic reticulum, they may very well have said, "That doesn't
exist!  I haven't seen it!"  But the way you would describe it would still
be phenomenological... that is, the term is still specified by its
visual and functional characteristics in the cell.  So, this catagory, for
that person at that time, becomes like the case of the unicorn.


Further, the notion of "discover" is tricky, because when we invent new
terms which distinguish new classes of phenomenological properties, and
apply them to our experience and find those properties in our experience,  
did we "discover" something or did we "invent" something?

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

