Philosophy Discussion Forums

Erm, yes. It's a false dichotomy, why would I answer your logical fallacies?

Geordie Ross wrote:Erm, yes. It's a false dichotomy, why would I answer your logical fallacies?

Logic. So you believe concepts should be logical. I can always tell when you are in trouble Geordie.

Geordie Ross wrote:Erm, yes. It's a false dichotomy, why would I answer your logical fallacies?

Sir I think logical fallacy can only be proved through answering and proving real arguments. Without answering you cannot prove any argument to be logical fallacy. IMO, It is called "apeal to fallacy" and this can only be cleared when you will answer with real argument, and not just considering something to be fallacy.

This is not the way to avoid the logical fallacy. Fallacies are avoided by giving arguments and not just by running away and considering in yourself that some argument is fallacy. IMO, this is the wrong understanding of logical fallacies. You should go for the answer to prove something as logical fallacy.

Just an advice Sir.

Okisites wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Sir I think logical fallacy can only be proved through answering and proving real arguments. Without answering you cannot prove any argument to be logical fallacy. IMO, It is called "apeal to fallacy" and this can only be cleared when you will answer with real argument, and not just considering something to be fallacy.

This is not the way to avoid the logical fallacy. Fallacies are avoided by giving arguments and not just by running away and considering in yourself that some argument is fallacy. IMO, this is the wrong understanding of logical fallacies. You should go for the answer to prove something as logical fallacy.

Just an advice Sir.

Very well, it is neither a concept nor an object. What is a sound wave, an object or a concept? It is neither, thus the constraint of the dichotomy is broken and a third category is required. The middle is not excluded.

Xris wrote:Energy is not an object.It is a concept. It exists only because we see the results of it. We can not describe it as an object because it has no value as an object. It's a bit like life.We know when something is alive but we really can not describe life. It is our inability to comprehend energy and life that is an expression of energy.

Well Xris Sir, I had came here to ask one question because I remember somewhere you said that energy is basic and transform into the mass ( I don't remember in which thread you have said that but probably the thread of "philosoph").

So I want to ask, as you are saying that Energy is just a concept. Would you like to explain how the concept transform into the mass, which suggest an object and which is simillar to matter?

I wanted to know how concept transforms into the object and this would be a important theory for me and many of our members probably.

-- Updated 11 Nov 2013, 00:05 to add the following --

Geordie Ross wrote:
Very well, it is neither a concept nor an object. What is a sound wave, an object or a concept? It is neither, thus the constraint of the dichotomy is broken and a third category is required. The middle is not excluded.

Actually Sir, I had came here to ask one question to Xris Sir That you can see. I am not really able to argue about all these matters perfectly.

Thank you.

Not a problem Okisites, you're right, I should have dissected the fallacy rather than state it.

Xris and Geordie: It strikes me that it might be useful for you to attempt to define exactly what each of you understands by the words "object" and "concept" in the context of this debate.

This, for what it's worth, is my view:

Everything in the world that we normally think of as an "object" is perceived via two things: observations and inferences made from those observations. Sometimes the observations and inferences are relatively direct. An example might be me observing an apple. This involves taking some sensory inputs caused by light hitting my retina, combining then with past sensory inputs and inferring the existence of an object called an apple.

But some observations and inferences are very much more indirect. An example might be a particle in a particle accelerator. This generally would not involve light bouncing straight off the particle into somebody's eye, as it would with the apple. It would involve a long sequence of events, probably resulting in some kind of computer readout. The existence of the particle is inferred from the indirect evidence of the computer readout (and past readouts) just as the existence of the apple is inferred from the light hitting my retina. Both are indirect, but one one is just a lot more indirect than the other.

I suspect that the word "concept" is being used here to refer to phenomena whose existence is inferred very indirectly and the word "object" is being used to refer to more direct inferences. So it's not actually being used as a categorical distinction, but as an arbitrarily chosen dividing line on the spectrum of indirectness. In which case, perhaps your only quarrel is where on this spectrum to place this arbitrary dividing line. Maybe it's just a matter of taste.

I don't know if that helps at all.

Yes it would help to define parameters but it's still fairly unnecessary to create synthetic categories and dichotomies. Is the reflection of my face in a mirror an object or a concept with your parameters set? It is a direct observation, but I'd certainly hesitate to call my reflection an "object", or a "concept"

Georgie: I agree that the either/or dichotomy between object and concept makes no sense. The word concept, to me, has extremely broad scope. It means anything that can be conceptualized - any set of coherent ideas about anything at all. So it would be more correct to see "objects" as a small, very specific subset of all possible concepts.

An object, in the everyday sense of the word, is the concept of matter. The concept of matter is useful for describing all kinds of classes of observations - like the set of observations that might be collectively called "seeing an apple". I'd say your reflection in a mirror doesn't fall into this category because the generally accepted explanation for that particular set of observations is that it doesn't refer to matter but to an effect caused by some matter and some light. So it's not an object for the same reason that your shadow is not an object. It's still a concept though. I can still sensibly talk about "the concept of a reflection".

Yes but a concept is immaterial, it is an idea with no physical or material presence. A reflection is a physical, observable phenomena. As is a sound wave, it's a physical mechanical wave. There's a lot of material properties confined to mere "concepts" because the definition of concept is being used incorrectly.

Well, as I said, I'd say that "matter" is itself a concept. A very useful and consistent concept. But anyway...

A reflection is a physical, observable phenomena.

Physical, yes, but not material, so not an object. At least not in the normal everyday sense of that word. It's a term for a particular type of interaction between light and matter. But it's also used roughly as a term for the image created by that light. Such is the ambiguity of language.

There's a lot of material properties confined to mere "concepts" because the definition of concept is being used incorrectly.

That's true - although I would have put the word "mere" in scare-quotes too. But I don't think it's wise to let other people's misuse and mangling of words affect the way that I use them myself. I know that Xris particularly uses the word "concept" as a pejorative catch-all term for "stuff that seems a bit weird to me". He and DarwinX also use the word "illogical" for pretty much the same purpose. In fact, that's quite a popular usage for that word around these parts. But I try not to let other people's misuse of the English language affect my own attempts to use it as correctly and precisely as I can.

Steve3007 wrote:Well, as I said, I'd say that "matter" is itself a concept. A very useful and consistent concept. But anyway...


(Nested quote removed.)


Physical, yes, but not material, so not an object. At least not in the normal everyday sense of that word. It's a term for a particular type of interaction between light and matter. But it's also used roughly as a term for the image created by that light. Such is the ambiguity of language.


(Nested quote removed.)


That's true - although I would have put the word "mere" in scare-quotes too. But I don't think it's wise to let other people's misuse and mangling of words affect the way that I use them myself. I know that Xris particularly uses the word "concept" as a pejorative catch-all term for "stuff that seems a bit weird to me". He and DarwinX also use the word "illogical" for pretty much the same purpose. In fact, that's quite a popular usage for that word around these parts. But I try not to let other people's misuse of the English language affect my own attempts to use it as correctly and precisely as I can.

Well personally I'd say matter is the direct opposite of a concept and would fall under any definition of "object". Unless you mean in a subjective idealistic manner? Also, your original pentameter for an object was something directly observable and physical. A reflection ticks both of those boxes, yet I wouldn't call it an object. This is the problem that arises when Gaede and Xris redefine words that have almost axiomatic definitions.

A object is vastly different to a concept, but there is also, as you pointed out, a much broader spectrum in between. (This is a nice philosophical discussion by the way, I'm enjoying this)


I also agree that the misuse of the English language should not ultimately change it's definitive and precise meaning. No matter how loudly and repetitively it occurs.

Steve3007 wrote:
Here's my answer: Gravity is a mechanism.

Here's my question: What is the mechanism behind aether?

1. Your answer is not an answer. It is a circular argument that a thing explains itself. The question was "what is gravity's mechanism" To answer that "gravity is a mechanism" is not being logical or helpful in explaining how gravity works. Please supply the mechanism by which gravity pulls from a distance.

You can use any number of illogical solutions that you like. Some examples - Gravitons run back and forth at speeds faster than light and somehow tell the distant atoms to come over because they are having a party etc, etc.

Feel free to use your imagination to create as many crazy such devises that you like. The one I have given you for free is the currently accepted model of how gravity works, but I'm sure that you or any five year old could come up with something better.

2. Aether pushes it doesn't pull. Note - The pushing mechanism doesn't require any further explanation because it doesn't need a mechanism to work. Whereas, the pulling action is far more complicated and requires an intelligence and an expanding and contracting muscle for it to work.

Okisites wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Well Xris Sir, I had came here to ask one question because I remember somewhere you said that energy is basic and transform into the mass ( I don't remember in which thread you have said that but probably the thread of "philosoph").

So I want to ask, as you are saying that Energy is just a concept. Would you like to explain how the concept transform into the mass, which suggest an object and which is simillar to matter?

I wanted to know how concept transforms into the object and this would be a important theory for me and many of our members probably.

-- Updated 11 Nov 2013, 00:05 to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


Actually Sir, I had came here to ask one question to Xris Sir That you can see. I am not really able to argue about all these matters perfectly.

Thank you.

I have an interesting article for you and Steve... http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/08/o ... cepts.html

It gives a clear idea of what I have been attempting to say. Mass is just as hard to define as energy.

DarwinX:

The pushing mechanism doesn't require any further explanation because it doesn't need a mechanism to work.

Why doesn't it need a mechanism?

Xris:

Mass is just as hard to define as energy.

I agree! That was part of the point of the topic. I'll read the article when I get minute. Thanks.

---

I read the article. It's very, very similar to a section from Bill Gaede's website. Essentially, as Gaede does, it says that objects have shape and you can point to them, and that concepts are relationships between objects.

These definitions work reasonably well as long as you never want to study anything that is not directly observable by human eyes and touchable by human fingers. In other words, they appeal to common sense and work for everyday objects like apples and bricks and human-scale quantities of air.

They rely on an implicit assumption that the idea of "shape" is precisely and exactly definable in all circumstances. But one of the things that you have to do when studying phenomena that are far removed from direct experience, like very, very, very small things, is to think very carefully about what you mean by the words that are taken for granted in everyday language.

We have the idea of "shape" because everyday objects have relatively precise boundaries. The electrostatic repulsion of the outer electrons of their outer atoms falls off very rapidly by comparison with the object's size. If you zoom in far enough, you find that the position of the object's outer boundary is somewhat arbitrary - a bit like the fact that the height considered to be the "top" of the Earth's atmosphere is arbitrary.

But, on a human scale, when you don't look too closely, it's black and white. Contact forces seem solid and unambiguous. It's only when you look closely that you realize that "contact forces" are no different from the forces that we sometimes think of as acting at a distance.

This is, incidentally, why DarwinX has the vague, muddled notion that "pushing" is somehow more fundamental than "pulling". Because he's much more used to seeing it in action. He has a visceral, direct appreciation of it. It seems inate and natural. And object boundaries seem precise. No gaps. None of this strange action at a distance. Or so it appears.

---

Anyway, I'll stop there because I think we've had almost this exact same conversation a long time ago, when considering the claims of Gaede's website. And it didn't get us anywhere that time either.