Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.object.logic,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Is time continuous?
Message-ID: <1995Mar1.004312.4558@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> <3iikm3INN9j7@duncan.cs.utk.edu> <MXM.95Feb26034944@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <3iumrp$m8n@btr0x1.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 00:43:12 GMT
Lines: 34
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27832 comp.object.logic:366 sci.logic:9883 sci.misc:12263 sci.philosophy.tech:16949 sci.physics:111876

In <3iumrp$m8n@btr0x1.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de> thomas@btm2d1.mat.uni-bayreuth.de (Thomas Wieland) writes:

> [...]
>There may be objects which cannot be perceived at all - yet they exists. So
>the ontological existence (the mere being) is just a necessary condition
>for the epistomological existence (it can be perceived), but no sufficient one.

This is a view that has always confused me.  I have a line of reasoning 
which seems to conclude that there can not be objects which are not
perceived at all, and I'm a curious which point in the argument someone
who believes as you do would disagree with:

1) Humans create language
2) Humans create words with a reason
3) Humans create referential nouns to refer to catagories of experience
   (whether catagories which put together specify what we call "physical
   objects" or "phenomena," it is still labels for catagories of experience).
4) We can delinate these catagories any way (that is, when we say "house"
   we put some sensory experiences together with others, whereas we would 
   include some but NOT others when we say "window.  Forground and background
   distinction is therefore in the catagory, not in the sensory experience)
5) "Objects" is a catagory refering to a kind of catagory for our experience.
6) Therefore, the distinction of something as an "object" exists by our
   act of distinction and not by the collections of sensory experiences
   themselves.
7) Therefore, an "object" can not be defined without reference to those
   sensory experiences which distinguish it from not-object or background.

Which one of these steps would you disagree with?

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

