WARNING: This part is more complex than all previous parts and drafts together. If you are new to these posts, I strongly suggest you read Part 1, 2, 3 and 3 bis first, because otherwise you will most likely not be able to follow Part 4.
For now, I am glad I finally got it written down.
For the definition of includes, see part 1.
For the discussion of simple and compound objects, see part 2.
For more information about properties, see part 3.
For more information about color, see part 3 bis.
This is a preliminary version of a work in progress.
Properties in perception philosophy.
First I spoke about natural and non-natural properties. But the picture is more complicated. Certain properties of objects are not real properties. Certain objects we refer to are not real objects either.
So there is a difference between the properties of real physical objects, and those of linguistic objects, as color is a property of a non-real linguistic object. It does pose the question how we are to refer to it. We refer to real objects in layers. We use linguistic objects in any language written or spoken. Those linguistic objects either refer to a real physical object or to a non-real physical object. As such I introduce two new terms: real linguistic objects, and non-real linguistic objects. A real linguistic object is an linguistic object that has as a property that the object it refers to is a real physical object. A non-real linguistic object is a linguistic object that has as a property that the object it refers to is a non-real physical object.
Now, one might pose the question, and correctly, what about emotions, thoughts and so on? And also, can the properties of a linguistic object change, so that at one moment it post to a non-real physical object and the next moment to a real physical object? First let's answer the first question.
Are emotions and thoughts physical objects? They are the result of physical objects interacting with each other. We may look at them as being not physical, but when a brain scan is done, we can see certain areas lighting up. This is a difficult question to answer, and the answer for the moment may shock certain people. For the moment (but more research is needed), I would say that they are an effect of physical objects interacting with each other. A proof for that idea is that, when people have brain damage, this also can damage the way they react, it damages their capabilities. Our emotions and thoughts are directly related to the human brain. Without the brain, there would not be emotions and language, and thoughts the way we know them. So emotions and thoughts and the thinking process, are linguistic objects that refer/point to the effect of physical objects interacting. This is not quite it, but it will do for now.
Article comments
1 - DrPat
Eeerk! There's a TEST coming!?! Can we just audit this course?
[grin]
2 - Floris Vermeir
not realy ;-). I have a solution or answer on emotions, have had it for 2-3 years now, but I won't post it here, as I can as well hit peoples feet whith a hammer at mach 1.
3 - Floris Vermeir
part 5 is being worked on, but won't be here any time soon.
As for dark matter. It was an example I wanted to include, but I will at least pose a question about. Although drakmatter is more astrophysics and astronomy rather then philosophy. Yet perception philosophy has a far wider impact then is often considerd.
Dark matter is called dark, because we cannot see it, but is it really dark ?
If I walk in my room, or I walk from home to the garden I walk trough air. I know its there but I can't see it. Could the same not be true for dark matter ? Air is transparent it does not have a color. Could it not be that as air, one could send a space craft trough dark matter and notice that one is passing trough but not be able to see it ?
Its not something that can easily be tested, but it would explain some things. Why there is said to be so much of it, and yet we cannot see it.
Perhaps that dark could mean that there is no light or wavelenghts at that place. It makes one wonder if its possible that there exist a transparent matter that absorbs most wavelenghts, and as such, looks dark becuase there is no light in any part of the spectrum, but isn't.
Its a long shot, and not well researched, so I didn't put it in. Draft will include more examples, and should include graphics, but how to post them here and on my own blog I have not figured out as yet. Probably best leave the graphics of here. I seem to have deviated from the original draft 3.5, but I'll worry about that later.
If you have any question, shoot, and I'll answer them. Or try to.
4 - Floris Vermeir
draft is draft 4
5 - Floris Vermeir
Perception philosophy and dark matter.
The example of dark matter, was not yet included in part 4 on properties because more research is needed. Dark matter is more astrophysics and astronomy but the influence of perception philosophy is bigger then often thought. In short is is about this.
Dark matter is called dark. Why because we cannot see it. But does it really mean that it is dark ? Dark , like when its dark at night, means that its dark because there i sno light, or any other part of the spectrum we can see. This poases some questions.
When I walk in the garden or in a park, or any where else I walk trough air. I know its there, yet I cannot see it. Could the same not be true of dark matter ? Recently a possible dark galaxy has been discovered. From what I remember to far to test this idea out. Because what does the above mean ? Supose you send a spacecraft to that dark galaxy, it could happen that it flies trough it but does not see it.
Lets use a simple methaphor. Imagine a swimming pool, filled whith water and different colored balls to reprensent different stars and planets and so on. If the light is fully turned on you can see them, if its turned off, you could perhaps only see the light generated by the objects themselves. If for example our solar system would be in that swimming pool, a spectator looking form above, would see the light of the sun, and some of the light and wavelenghts coming from other bodies.
For it to be completly dark, either the objects would not generate any light(the whole spectrum, all wavelengths implied in this, which ones exactley I have to look up) or what they do generate is absorbed by something else. In the methaphor it would mean that the water would absorb the light. Normally it doesn't. If I shine whith a lamp in the water, the light spreads, the same is true in space. Otherwise the light of the sun would not reach us.
Now what can absorb light(all wavelenghts) in space ? Blackholes do. As recently as around 400 years ago there was one active nearby. Well far enough away anyway, in Sagetarius, have to look up the exact name, will add that later. The possibillity is that the light from that dark galaxy or another was absorbed by it or something similar, the last time it was active. That also means there is a chance that it will reach us somewhere in the years/centuries to come. There is the effect of lensing which means the location might be somewhere else. Stellar clouds, but mostly they change the wavelenght, and only absorb parts of it. What if they would exist or be surrounded by transparent matter that absorbs all wavelengths. That would fit. It would be dark.
If there is a galaxy or star behind this dark galaxy its light should normally penetrate, but on the picture that was not to be seen.
Sagetarisus, is not form horoscopes, but a group of stars. Sagetarisus A, B, B2 and some others.
How to test this ? Relatilvey simple, use different telescopes who can look at different wavelenghts to look at the same dark galaxy, and see what the result is. I do not like making predictions on this, having only limitted knowledge, but my best most educated guess at the moment is, that it might be turn out that no light comes form that 'dark' galaxy, because it is build out of or surounded by transparent matter that absorbs that light. Even if that would turn out to be wrong, you then can at least take one possibilty of the list.
Dark is said between quotes, because it is a linguistic propertie of the linguistic object dark matter. Dark significies, but will doublecheck, absent of light.
Now there will be those who think this sounds like SF, and there will be astrophyscist who think that as well. To them I will say, most theorys I have read in the past 3-4 years, sound like SF. But I'm willing to accept them as possibilities, because I know there is a difference between the world as I see it, and as it really is. That is what the text about perception philosophy is about.
Does this make the world less beautiful ?
No it doesn't, I enjoy the colors as much as I did before, but novel insights, allow to see a different world, a different universum. They bring understanding to parts less understood before. It opens up new possibilities.
Still have to choose which one:
Op dit werk is de Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.
6 - Floris Vermeir
Parts 5 A, 5 B, 6 and 7 are in progress.
7 - Douwe
I don't think it matters one hoot why dark matter is called 'dark'. What matters more is that 99.5% of our universe is made out of something we can't detect.
Put that into perspective. I hate to get all Descartes on you, but what do you know?