Are we blind machines?
John Jones
Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
metaphor close to their hearts.
But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is
obvious that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example,
the Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's
parts and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal
for entertainment.
But are ALL objects of our own creation? It would seem so. There isn't
any physical limit that tells us where an electron starts and ends. WE
make the limits up ourselves, according to need.
So, if we don't move around the world's objects like a blind machine,
perhaps it is because all of its objects, whether they are of our own
creation or not, are unreal. But in that case I couldn't say anything
about what is real and what is unreal without already assuming a
position that is independent of both, and that position is denied me by
the same proposal.
walterimlenz
> ...
With your tendency to start new threads again and again, admittedly
most of them expressing a distinctive thought (some of them good, some
of them quite poor), you would be able to serve as a rather fatal
philosophy teacher. You could merely teach your students some virtual
brilliance, consisting mainly in the ability to jump from one thing to
the other, without ever discussing anything through to the end, or, at
least, until there is reached some clarification. - Maybe, you could
produce a new pack of post-structuralists.
Walter Imlenz
Shrikeback
> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>
> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
> metaphor close to their hearts.
Strawman.
> But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is
> obvious that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example,
> the Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's
> parts and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal
> for entertainment.
If the world's objects are really created by us,
wouldn't that mean that _we_ were created
by us as well?
>
> But are ALL objects of our own creation? It would seem so. There isn't
> any physical limit that tells us where an electron starts and ends. WE
> make the limits up ourselves, according to need.
Ah. So I can start work on my perpetual motion machine.
Great. Thanks. Want to invest?
> So, if we don't move around the world's objects like a blind machine,
> perhaps it is because all of its objects, whether they are of our own
> creation or not, are unreal.
The question this brings up is, "Are WE unreal?" Since
we are just object patterns projected onto the world,
aren't we?
> But in that case I couldn't say anything
> about what is real and what is unreal without already assuming a
> position that is independent of both, and that position is denied me by
> the same proposal.
So totally unreal, dude.
Sanity's Little Helper
> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>
> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
> metaphor close to their hearts.
John, stop blaming everybody else for your problems, take the fucking
medication they prescribed you, and fuck off out of Usenet.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" is a casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
must not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Giga
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h2r66p$6jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>
> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
> metaphor close to their hearts.
>
> But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is obvious
> that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example, the
> Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's parts
> and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal for
> entertainment.
So a 32 inch screen is really a universe wide screen? Good luck trying to
watch your favorite programme from just down the street let alone alpha
centauri!
Errol
> > But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is obvious
> > that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example, the
> > Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's parts
> > and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal for
> > entertainment.
>
> So a 32 inch screen is really a universe wide screen? Good luck trying to
> watch your favorite programme from just down the street let alone alpha
> centauri!
>
No the 32 inch screen exists in the advancement of entertainment
centre of the brain as it doesn't really exist according to JJ. Don't
lose concentration while watching your favourite program or the whole
TV will fade into memory. I find that pisses off my wife when I fall
asleep watching telly and the whole damn thing just dissappears.
Giga
"Errol" <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b3a85ef-6a79-4111...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
= Not as bas a swhen I was daydreaming while driving a new car and it
suddenly turned in Cindy Crawford!
John Jones
If we create the limits of the world's objects (Kantianism) then we
can't be said to be blind machines.
And I can't make such counter-arguments as this one:
"we blindly move around the real world because the only objects we
perceive are unreal"
I can't make that latter counter-argument because it is made from a
position that views both real and unreal. But that view is denied me by
the premise of the statement which indicates that I can only view the
unreal.
..What else you can do with all that I don't know. It could be presented
as an idea traced out through the vast integrated texts of scholastic
philosophy, with names, dates and movements.
John Jones
> On Jul 5, 2:29 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
>> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
>> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>>
>> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
>> metaphor close to their hearts.
>
> Strawman.
>
>> But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is
>> obvious that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example,
>> the Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's
>> parts and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal
>> for entertainment.
>
> If the world's objects are really created by us,
> wouldn't that mean that _we_ were created
> by us as well?
What makes us human, the physical limits of our physical form, and the
limits of the objects we recognise, are of our own making.
So you have to find an object that is not of our own making. Can you do
that? is it possible?
>> But are ALL objects of our own creation? It would seem so. There isn't
>> any physical limit that tells us where an electron starts and ends. WE
>> make the limits up ourselves, according to need.
>
> Ah. So I can start work on my perpetual motion machine.
> Great. Thanks. Want to invest?
No-one's suggesting that fickle imagination is up to the job of creating
physical objects and laws.
>> So, if we don't move around the world's objects like a blind machine,
>> perhaps it is because all of its objects, whether they are of our own
>> creation or not, are unreal.
>
> The question this brings up is, "Are WE unreal?" Since
> we are just object patterns projected onto the world,
> aren't we?
You can't ask that question without creating a new mystery, and it is a
mystery that you want to get rid of. The mystery your question creates
is the mystery of how we can think outside of a system (the unreal) that
we cannot think outside of.
John Jones
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:h2r66p$6jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
>> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
>> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>>
>> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
>> metaphor close to their hearts.
>>
>> But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is obvious
>> that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example, the
>> Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's parts
>> and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal for
>> entertainment.
>
>
> So a 32 inch screen is really a universe wide screen? Good luck trying to
> watch your favorite programme from just down the street let alone alpha
> centauri!
Without a human view you wouldn't have a larger screen or a screen at
all. You, human, set the limits here.
Giga
If all humans dissapeared a screen would still be a screen, and it would
still be as big as other things that are 32 inches.
ZerkonXXXX
> really created
REALLY!? "CREATED"?
This absolute defeats both the rabid theist and the dogmatic anti-theist.
As god did not just create (a thing from no thing) so the human did not
just create god.
I think 'creation' is the base metaphor here.
Zinnic
It is impossible to know any thing in the 'fullest sense' because the
part (we) can not encompass the whole (the 'real' universe).
So accept the default position (IMO that is pragmatism). 'Pretend'
that there are 'real things' to which we have a 'real' response. Then
'pretend' we are in control and doing things by our own volition.
There is no alternative, get used to it and take it from there!
Zinnic
ZerkonXXXX
Qualified disagreement.
As you may be aware, the teacher, as person, is a large part of the what
is learned. Teacher is curriculum independent of what they may be saying.
'Poor' then gives way to 'different' at the very least. Actually this
aspect is so personal and relative to both teacher and student(s) as to
be nearly unapproachable by it's shear complexity.
"to start new threads again and again" addresses the person and as you
say the "some are good some are poor" aspect addresses what is being said.
However, you and I, as readers, are not students but peers. To paraphrase
the film: "THIS IS USENET!". John knows this. (John better know this!)
So what do we learn from 'John Jones' may very well be different to what
is he saying with, I believe, a certainty he does not really have. He is
testing uncertainties.
[insert fishing analogy here]
polymer
<snippage>
> So what do we learn from 'John Jones' may very well be different to what
> is he saying with, I believe, a certainty he does not really have. He is
> testing uncertainties.
Yes, engaging in hyperbolic doubt about almost anything
a respondent says while clinging to ill formed claims.
This hardly takes talent -- just determination.
>
> [insert fishing analogy here]
Exactly.
John Jones
> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:h2sj1p$vi3$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Giga <Giga wrote:
>>> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h2r66p$6jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
>>>> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
>>>> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>>>>
>>>> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
>>>> metaphor close to their hearts.
>>>>
>>>> But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is
>>>> obvious that at least some objects are of our own creation. For example,
>>>> the Television isn't an object that has an independent existence. It's
>>>> parts and physical extent are ascertained through, for example our goal
>>>> for entertainment.
>>>
>>> So a 32 inch screen is really a universe wide screen? Good luck trying to
>>> watch your favorite programme from just down the street let alone alpha
>>> centauri!
>> Without a human view you wouldn't have a larger screen or a screen at all.
>> You, human, set the limits here.
>
> If all humans dissapeared a screen would still be a screen,
You haven't created a situation where there are no humans. You have
created a situation where there are invisible human witnesses.
> and it would
> still be as big as other things that are 32 inches.
A TV has no independent existence - what, in the physical world,
establishes the TV and the carpet it stands on as two objects?
John Jones
I entirely missed what all of that was about.
John Jones
> It is impossible to know any thing in the 'fullest sense' because the
> part (we) can not encompass the whole (the 'real' universe).
If the whole is a product of our own human perspective then we can be
absolutely sure that we know things in the fullest sense.
Fred Stone
The TV can be moved from the carpet without altering either the TV or the
carpet.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support
of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw
John Jones
AS I said though, there's nothing in physical nature that could
establish the carpet as not belonging to the TV.
Fred Stone
Except that the TV can be moved from the carpet without altering either
the TV or the carpet.
--
Giga
> Giga <Giga wrote:
>> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2sj1p$vi3$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Giga <Giga wrote:
>>>> "John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h2r66p$6jk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Are we machines blindly moving around the world's objects?
>>>>> Of course not! If the world's objects are of our own creation we can
>>>>> hardly be said to be "blind" among them.
>>>>>
>>>>> This won't please Dawkinian evolutionists who hold the "human robot"
>>>>> metaphor close to their hearts.
>>>>>
>>>>> But am I right? are the worlds objects really created by us? It is
>>>>> obvious that at least some objects are of our own creation. For
>>>>> example, the Television isn't an object that has an independent
>>>>> existence. It's parts and physical extent are ascertained through, for
>>>>> example our goal for entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> So a 32 inch screen is really a universe wide screen? Good luck trying
>>>> to watch your favorite programme from just down the street let alone
>>>> alpha centauri!
>>> Without a human view you wouldn't have a larger screen or a screen at
>>> all. You, human, set the limits here.
>>
>> If all humans dissapeared a screen would still be a screen,
>
> You haven't created a situation where there are no humans. You have
> created a situation where there are invisible human witnesses.
>
No, I can imagine an alein race eventually finding the de-populatated Earth,
finding a TV and realising almost instantly that it is a screeen.
>
>> and it would still be as big as other things that are 32 inches.
>
> A TV has no independent existence - what, in the physical world,
> establishes the TV and the carpet it stands on as two objects?
So many things. They are made of different materials. They have different
functions. They are in different places. They have a different history etc
etc. Is your whole idea based on the difficulty of setting firm boundaries
between objects, because they are essentially a swarm of atoms?
John Jones
But physical nature won't show that the carpet does not belong to the
TV. You need a human framework.
John Jones
But these aliens are surrogate humans. A TV doesn't know what its limits
are. It takes a human, or surrogate human, designer to describe the
limits of a TV.
>>> and it would still be as big as other things that are 32 inches.
>> A TV has no independent existence - what, in the physical world,
>> establishes the TV and the carpet it stands on as two objects?
>
> So many things. They are made of different materials.
It's impossible isn't it. There's no physical property that can
distinguish a TV from the carpet it stands on. You need a human designer.
The TV can only be found in the human mind. BUT! - its physical limits
are also set by the human mind. They are not set in nature.
> They have different
> functions. They are in different places. They have a different history etc
> etc. Is your whole idea based on the difficulty of setting firm boundaries
> between objects, because they are essentially a swarm of atoms?
No, the difficulty is how objects can be described independently of the
human designer. TV's can't possibly exist in nature outside of the mind.
The limits of the TV are set by human goals, and these limits are
physical limits. Humans set the physical limits of objects. These limits
do not set themselves. A TV doesn't have its own physical TV identity.
Giga
Wouldn't an injection molding machine generally set the limits of the TV's
case? ANd is not an injection molding machine part of nature? In fact is not
the designer of the machine and the TV part of nature?
Errol
>> But these aliens are surrogate humans. A TV doesn't know what its limits
> are. It takes a human, or surrogate human, designer to describe the
> limits of a TV.
>
Why should a TV know what its limits are? Does a raindrop or a rock
(not artificial by your definition) know what their limits are?
Anyway my TV seems to know it's limits as it never gets so big as to
fall off the TV stand. Do you suppose the two are in collusion? I
wouldn't be surprised as the two of them just sit there huddling
together all day.
>
> It's impossible isn't it. There's no physical property that can
> distinguish a TV from the carpet it stands on. You need a human designer.
>
You dont think that plastic and steel have different physical
properties from wool and nylon? or "The office" from red and green
swirls on a carpet?
> The TV can only be found in the human mind. BUT! - its physical limits
> are also set by the human mind. They are not set in nature.
So far I have been extreemely lucky to find my TV on the TV stand
every day, but I am a bit worried about my VCR. What should I do? I
need it to set the channels I record but now you say they are set in
the human mind. Bloody hell, the VCR is difficult enough to program as
it is.
>
> No, the difficulty is how objects can be described independently of the
> human designer. TV's can't possibly exist in nature outside of the mind.
>
Only the designer? What about the manufacturer, the subcontracted tube
makers, the electronics geek with the extra large adams apple and the
head of marketing that tells us why we should buy this TV and not
another?
Does my TV exist in ALL their minds, yet not in my bloody house?
> The limits of the TV are set by human goals, and these limits are
> physical limits. Humans set the physical limits of objects. These limits
> do not set themselves. A TV doesn't have its own physical TV identity.-
My goal is to have a physical TV that stays put and can be programmed
by my VCR. Is this too much to ask for?
Zinnic
How can "our own human perspective" produce the whole when it is only
a part of the whole you claim it produces?
Where does the last part of a snake go, if it can completely consume
itself?
Zinnic
Zinnic
> >news:h2t9pe$ifh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Giga <Giga wrote:
> >>>news:h2sj1p$vi3$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> Giga <Giga wrote:
>
So accept these human goals and limits. That way you get to watch TV,
vacuum clean carpets and post sophistries on this NG.
Else check with the Great Brain in the Vat! :-)
Zinnic
John Jones
The moulding machine already assumes our own object. Objects arise by
our own definitions. Isn't that true?
ANd is not an injection molding machine part of nature? In fact is not
> the designer of the machine and the TV part of nature?
What part of nature? The nature whose limits are defined by us.
John Jones
> On Jul 7, 3:15 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> But these aliens are surrogate humans. A TV doesn't know what its limits
>> are. It takes a human, or surrogate human, designer to describe the
>> limits of a TV.
>>
>
> Why should a TV know what its limits are? Does a raindrop or a rock
> (not artificial by your definition) know what their limits are?
>
> Anyway my TV seems to know it's limits as it never gets so big as to
> fall off the TV stand. Do you suppose the two are in collusion? I
> wouldn't be surprised as the two of them just sit there huddling
> together all day.
>
>> It's impossible isn't it. There's no physical property that can
>> distinguish a TV from the carpet it stands on. You need a human designer.
>>
>
> You dont think that plastic and steel have different physical
> properties from wool and nylon? or "The office" from red and green
> swirls on a carpet?
So name me things that are the same. What is "different" here is a
measure of our goals of design.
John Jones
A whole isn't constituted. A whole is not "constituted" of its parts.