- #1
yinyinwang
Or is the meaning of a word a object?
What is the definition of object.
What is the definition of object.
Originally posted by Sikz
Therefore a dream consists of objects going through a process- just as wind, fire, and frogs (among other things) do. Wind would not be wind if it were still, fire would not be fire without the chemical reactions that make it up, and frogs would not be frogs without the chemical/mental processes going on within them. If a frog, then, is an object (and if wind and fire are objects) then a dream would appear to be just as validly an object.
Originally posted by Sikz
Therefore a dream consists of objects going through a process- just as wind, fire, and frogs (among other things) do. Wind would not be wind if it were still, fire would not be fire without the chemical reactions that make it up, and frogs would not be frogs without the chemical/mental processes going on within them. If a frog, then, is an object (and if wind and fire are objects) then a dream would appear to be just as validly an object.
Originally posted by Sikz
But would we really not consider the projection an object? We would consider a hologram an object, would we not? Likewise a hallucination might be considered an object.
Also, how do you know that a dream IS a projection after all?
Originally posted by Sikz
Part of our original inquery is "what is the definition of an object", so we can't say "A dream is not an object based on the definition of an object" without first finding the definition of an object.
Simply saying "things with substance" is not enough. The definition must be discovered through a logical train of thought if it is to be discovered at all.
Originally posted by Sikz
. . . I do not have reason to suggest that dreams have more "substance" than you are implying. However, I have no reason to believe that they only have that amount of "substance" either. Depending upon your views of reality, human imagination, and consciousness (among other things), you might view dreams as more than simply an illusion caused by the brain of a sleeping person. It is entirely possible, for example, that dreams are just as "real" as waking experiences, especially if reality is subjective. If concepts exist somehow, then dreams, as concepts, exist in that same way. I could go on and on down the list of possibilities. The point is that no definitions should be taken for granted in this (or nearly any) philosophical enquiry.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Can we agree that an 'object,' whatever it might be, must be objective in nature? (That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, does it? ) If so, the question of dreams being objects becomes rather trivial.
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Can we agree that an 'object,' whatever it might be, must be objective in nature? (That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, does it? ) If so, the question of dreams being objects becomes rather trivial.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
But there are things that wiggle out of that definition. Take blue. You see blue and don't have to think about it. Likewise I see blue and don't have to think about it. And we agree on the things we see as blue.
But what you see as blue and what I see as blue have no relationship to each other at all.
Originally posted by yinyinwang
Is the magnet field an object? Is magnetic field a universal object? Is space an object? Is time an object? Is motion an object?
Originally posted by Sikz
We are not questioning the meaning of the WORD object, but of the concept. A little harder to grasp, but still...
This actually avoid the question, certainly no answer to this question will not affect the world much, but logically, we are expecting a yes/no answer, not big/small.Originally posted by hypnagogue
Can we agree that an 'object,' whatever it might be, must be objective in nature? (That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, does it? ) If so, the question of dreams being objects becomes rather trivial.
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Now it's time for me to nitpick .
You are probably right to imply this question is trivial, but it is interesting to me as an opportunity to explore what a philosophical problem is versus simply understanding the use of language.
First, the word "object" precedes in meaning the word "objective," and each have several meanings. For example, besides something that is perceived as an entity and referred to by a name, an object can be the focus of someone's attention, an aim or purpose, grammer meanings, computer program meanings, optic meanings, and verb forms (as in "to object).
"Objective" likewise is used many ways, and just saying something is objective doesn't necessarily mean it is an "object." In fact, I could find no dictionary definition that exactly stated that, with the closest being "existing independently of mind or perception." If, Hypnagogue, you meant that because a dream is subjective to the person dreaming, it isn't an object, that overlooks the fact that with the definitions there are, a dream can be an object (or objective) in several ways (an object of study, for instance).
But I believe yinyinwang was specifically asking about whether a dream is an object in the sense of how we define a thing of substance. My answer to that is, in the English language a dream is not substantial enough to be considered an "object" in that regard. Assuming I've understood yinyinwang's question correctly, my point to Sikz has been that blurring distinctions between multiple definitions of a word doesn't make it a philosophical issue ( though it could be a science issue if one were suggesting there is more substance to a dream than we believe).
you provide useful analysis and dictionary definition of object.thank you for that.Originally posted by hypnagogue
So an object must be something that is discrete, material, and observable. ("Tangible" I think can now be recognized as a redundant criterion, since "material" and "observable" together exhaust the meaning of "tangible.") The term "objective" encompasses "material" and (in the scientific sense of the word, at least) "observable," but not necessarily "discrete." So we are left with the following proposition:
An object is a discrete thing that is objective in nature. [/B]
Originally posted by yinyinwang
you provide useful analysis and dictionary definition of object.thank you for that.
But the last definition is cyclic because using "objective" to define "object" is like saying chicken is something chichening.
the word "detectable" is btter than "observable".
Originally posted by yinyinwang
when i try to define the concept of object, i mean the philosophical sense of the word, not the general language usage, a very presise, clearly,logically defined, which means the clear connotation and extension.
"observe" is more related to human behavior, "detect" can be an equipment or unhuman behavior, like a dog finds something.Originally posted by hypnagogue
What is the difference between "detectable" and "observable"?
i am still examing them, but do not feel promising.Originally posted by hypnagogue
So, which of the terms in the above definition of object correspond to "the philosophical sense of the word"?
Originally posted by yinyinwang
"observe" is more related to human behavior, "detect" can be an equipment or unhuman behavior, like a dog finds something.
I think this distinction exists as a function of your personal connotations, not as a result of the definitions of the words themselves. For instance, there is nothing semantically wrong with saying "the dog observed a peculiar smell." If anything, I suppose you could make a case that "observing" entails "detecting" accompanied by "reflecting," though this is not the meaning of the word in scientific parlance. Either way, though, "detectable" works just as well as "observable."