The World You Perceive Does Not Exist

a reply to: TheJourney

I never said you were off topic.

A noun is a word that refers to a thing — a subject or an object. This discussion is whether the world we perceive (meaning the things we perceive) can be legitimately described as real. We were discussing whether 'sound' is a thing (pressure waves in a fluid medium) or the perception of that thing by the brain. In trying to show that it is the latter, you compared 'sound' to 'green'. But 'green' is not a thing — it is a quality. And therefore the word 'green' is not a noun (only nouns refer to things) but an adjective (a word that refers to a quality). Because 'green' is a quality and not a thing — an adjective and not a noun — the comparison you are seeking to draw is invalid.

I can remember how the conversation went even if you can't.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney

I never said you were off topic.

A noun is a word that refers to a thing — a subject or an object. This discussion is whether the world we perceive (meaning the things we perceive) can be legitimately described as real. We were discussing whether 'sound' is a thing (pressure waves in a fluid medium) or the perception of that thing by the brain. In trying to show that it is the latter, you compared 'sound' to 'green'. But 'green' is not a thing — it is a quality. And therefore the word 'green' is not a noun (only nouns refer to things) but an adjective (a word that refers to a quality). Because 'green' is a quality and not a thing — an adjective and not a noun — the comparison you are seeking to draw is invalid.

I can remember how the conversation went even if you can't.

You interpreted my thread as 'the things we perceive,' but that's the meaning you personally gave it, which was not the meaning I intended. Green is a visual quality. It's a perceptual quality. Which has been what I've been attempting to discuss the entire time.

I said. 'x' is a perceptual quality. So is 'y.'

You said, 'x' is a thing, but 'y' isn't. Therefore, you're changing the subject.

Whereas, for me, the subject the entire time has been perceptual qualities...which you interpreted as 'things,' but that has never been my intention.

a reply to: TheJourney

You were talking about things.

From your opening post:

We think things 'are' the way we perceive them.

You then went on, very specifically, to define a 'thing' as separate from its qualities.

Its color. Its smell. The way it feels when we touch it. The noises it makes. What it tastes like. But yet, the object itself contains absolutely none of these qualities. All perception is interpretations by the brain.

As I said in my first post on the thread, I agree with all of this.

I said. 'x' is a perceptual quality. So is 'y.'

You said, 'x' is a thing, but 'y' isn't. Therefore, you're changing the subject.

No, I was correcting you because you committed a category error, a very basic mistake in semantics.

Ta-ta for now. I'll come by again in a couple of years to see whether you've made any progress.

The last number of posts have been me saying what I meant, and you telling me I meant something different...

Anyways, if being condescending is a mark of intelligence, you are certainly highly intelligent

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney
Ta-ta for now. I'll come by again in a couple of years to see whether you've made any progress.

a reply to: TheJourney it is debatable to us all nowadays as to whether matter is illusory or not. Does an atom really exist without our "perception" of it or God's will to just make the little thing appear to exist as solid? I dunno. All I know is that the further I delve into physics and DNA, the more I get scared because of all the mistakes I have made in my life.