A Philosophical Conundrum. No.1

[MindOverMatter2]

When we look at the illusion of a face in the rocks of a mountain, we perceive it because we have seen real faces and thus can draw an inference.

My question is the following:

When we draw a picture of a face on a piece of paper, is it really a picture of a face in objective reality, or is it merely just a layer of atoms placed in an organized fashion upon another layer of atoms. To put it simply, if we had never existed but the picture did, would it still be a “picture of a face”, or would it just be lines on a piece of paper? Is it purely subjective or is it objective?

 

[fulbert4605]

If we truly had no reference points, they’d just be lines on a piece of paper. Objectively, they are lines, or atoms. And it’s okay to admit that. Everyone sees they are lines. Subjectively, the lines constitute a face. Your brain interprets it as a face so fast that the objective reality is usually glossed over without notice and subjective conclusion is drawn.

Depending on your state of awareness and reference points, there is a middle ground. You could perceive lines, but deduce within yourself that the lines probably constitute something when taken as a whole; that the drawing was drawn for a purpose - you simply do not know the purpose. It’s like looking at a foreign language. You know that those are letters that mean something, but since you do not know the language you cannot make the explicit, subjective interpretation. (The subjective interpretation that is defined by a set of people who sat down and first created the language or as society has taught it)

 

[Apollos]

When we look at the illusion of a face in the rocks of a mountain, we perceive it because we have seen real faces and thus can draw an inference.

My question is the following:

When we draw a picture of a face on a piece of paper, is it really a picture of a face in objective reality, or is it merely just a layer of atoms placed in an organized fashion upon another layer of atoms. To put it simply, if we had never existed but the picture did, would it still be a “picture of a face”, or would it just be lines on a piece of paper? Is it purely subjective or is it objective?

Another word for what makes something what it is, is “form”. In the case of a a triangle, what makes a triangle a triangle is it’s shape, so the form of a triangle is a triangle.

In the case of a tree, it’s a little more complex because to be alive is part of what it is to be a tree, not just its shape. But we know it to be a tree the moment the form of the tree is in our minds.

In the case of a drawing of a face, the form is not in the thing, but only in the mind, because the drawing is an artificial construction made to have the same shape as a real face.

Consequently it is not really a picture of a face in objective reality. A sign of this is that sometimes you can look at a picture and not be able to tell what it is, and then something clicks and you see it.

 

[JohnDamian]

If a real form has a similarity with another form; even if the composite matter of that form is different; the thing may share a formal identity; this is objective as the qualities that exist within that form are objective and percieved recognatively rather than generatively; thus - a shape on a page of a face; and a shape on a mountain of a face share a formal unity; at least in part because the essence of that thing has commonalities that (in the form) allow it to be either identical or similar (ie; unity).

 

[DexUK]

Things have matter, form and substance.

The matter is the atoms on the paper.
The form is the physical arrangement of those atoms.
The substance is the realisation of what the physical arrangement of those atoms means.

So, if there had never been any human faces in the Universe, there would not be, on the part of whatever was perceiving the picture, any realisation of what it meant, therefore it would just be matter and form but lacking any substance.

 

[JohnDamian]

The substance is the realisation of what the physical arrangement of those atoms means.

"Substance, in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word is that which is neither predicable of a subject or present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species “man”, and the genus to which the species belongs is “animal”; these therefore-that is to say, the species “man” and the genus “animal,-are termed secondary substances.”

From The Categories, Organon - by Aristotle.

 

[reggieM]

When we draw a picture of a face on a piece of paper, is it really a picture of a face in objective reality, or is it merely just a layer of atoms placed in an organized fashion upon another layer of atoms. To put it simply, if we had never existed but the picture did, would it still be a “picture of a face”, or would it just be lines on a piece of paper? Is it purely subjective or is it objective?

Interesting conundrum. I understand the point you’re looking at but I’ll take a different approach … more like artistic theory.

Can it ever “really” be a picture of a face?

What if the artist intended it to be a picture of something else?

Now, we say it “looks like” a face – but that’s an interpretation.

So, I think the ‘objective’ part is that our senses experience “something”. That something is objective.

What is “really” is requires interpretation.

 

[stenlis]

When we look at the illusion of a face in the rocks of a mountain, we perceive it because we have seen real faces and thus can draw an inference.

My question is the following:

When we draw a picture of a face on a piece of paper, is it really a picture of a face in objective reality, or is it merely just a layer of atoms placed in an organized fashion upon another layer of atoms. To put it simply, if we had never existed but the picture did, would it still be a “picture of a face”, or would it just be lines on a piece of paper? Is it purely subjective or is it objective?

Minds interpret their stimuli. Different minds interpret differently. You might see a cloud formation that looks remarkably like a small arthropod called ‘tardigrade’. The problem is, that you would never make that interpretation if you’ve never seen a tardigrade. Only a biologist familiar with the little animal would make that connection.

Interpretation is a function of a mind not of the object being subjected to interpretation.

If a being that never saw a human face or anything similar to it sees a picture of a human face, it cannot interpret it as a human face. Is it still a human face? Only to you and me and other beings that can interpret a drawing of a human face.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Minds interpret their stimuli. Different minds interpret differently. You might see a cloud formation that looks remarkably like a small arthropod called ‘tardigrade’. The problem is, that you would never make that interpretation if you’ve never seen a tardigrade. Only a biologist familiar with the little animal would make that connection.

Interpretation is a function of a mind not of the object being subjected to interpretation.

If a being that never saw a human face or anything similar to it sees a picture of a human face, it cannot interpret it as a human face. Is it still a human face? Only to you and me and other beings that can interpret a drawing of a human face.

I feel a strong compulsion to agree with you. Thanks for your civil (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Interesting conundrum. I understand the point you’re looking at but I’ll take a different approach … more like artistic theory.

Can it ever “really” be a picture of a face?

What if the artist intended it to be a picture of something else?

Now, we say it “looks like” a face – but that’s an interpretation.

So, I think the ‘objective’ part is that our senses experience “something”. That something is objective.

What is “really” is requires interpretation.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Reggie:thumbsup:. Do you think that an interpretation can be objectively valid even though it is subjectively uncertain? In one sense I want to say that it is a picture of a persons face in objective reality; but I also believe that being a person is really a union of a body and an immaterial rational soul. In that case, could it be that every picture that you have ever taken has never truly captured that union, but rather only capture a “body” absent of any evidence of a rational soul or person?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe I just don’t understand the question. In any event, a guy like me is always on thin ice talking about philosophy at all. But here’s my take.

The objective reality of the face drawing is, indeed, a group of atoms clustered in a particular way upon another group of atoms. That’s objective reality. It is arranged in a manner that most humans, anyway, put together, mentally, as a human face, due to the particular way human brains and eyes perceive things and interact with memories. That capacity of the drawing, too, is objective reality.

But the mental notion “human face” is subjective, because it requires the subject to perceive it as a human face, precisely because it is not, objectively, a human face, but only gives rise to the notion “human face” because of the way it interacts with the human subject.

If no humans ever existed, nor did any other being have any mental image of the reality of humans, the drawing would still be just exactly what it is, objectively, if humans did exist; that is, atoms arranged in a particular way upon other atoms, which, given eyes and brains and memories of a particular sort (it doesn’t matter if they don’t actually exist) would give rise to the subjective notion of “human face.”

 

[reggieM]

Do you think that an interpretation can be objectively valid even though it is subjectively uncertain?

Yes, I do think it can be objectively valid, but the only problem is that we’ll never know (in this life) if it really is or not. We would need some way to validate whether we really had the objective reality or not – so that requires a judge who can infallibly view all things in their objective reality. No human being can do that though – so, we make our best judgement and trust that we’re right.

In one sense I want to say that it is a picture of a persons face in objective reality; but I also believe that being a person is really a union of a body and an immaterial rational soul. In that case, could it be that every picture that you have ever taken has never truly captured that union, but rather only capture a “body” absent of any evidence of a rational soul or person?

 

[reggieM]

If the image looked exactly like a human face though (so that every human would recognize it as a face), would it objectively be a picture of a human face?

I think we decide with a high degree of certainty when we have consensus from other human beings … but could everyone be wrong?