Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[Linusthe2nd]

I do have faith. I just don’t have certainty. I see there is a difference. Asserting that I don’t have faith doesn’t really help me, it just provokes me to lose my faith, which I try to resist.

Perhaps you should give up philosophizing. Or take a break from it for six months or so. Why not just ignore all the debates, lectures, authors which are philosophizing? Spend six months just reading the lives of the Saints, the Bible, the Catechism and attending to your spiritual life? And take up a hobby, get some new interests. Let your mind clear for awhile.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

Perhaps you should give up philosophizing. Or take a break from it for six months or so. Why not just ignore all the debates, lectures, authors which are philosophizing? Spend six months just reading the lives of the Saints, the Bible, the Catechism and attending to your spiritual life? And take up a hobby, get some new interests. Let your mind clear for awhile.

Linus2nd

I philosophized within myself for a long time before I came to this forum. I decided having the (name removed by moderator)ut of people other than myself might be helpful in my search for the truth.

Maybe it is better to be on my own than to try and fail repeatedly to show others how I see the world.

 

[MPat]

I philosophized within myself for a long time before I came to this forum. I decided having the (name removed by moderator)ut of people other than myself might be helpful in my search for the truth.

Maybe it is better to be on my own than to try and fail repeatedly to show others how I see the world.

That doesn’t look right… What kind of (name removed by moderator)ut of other people were you trying to get? And why is showing others how you see the world important for that (name removed by moderator)ut? Shouldn’t it be more important to find out how others see it, if you are interested in their (name removed by moderator)ut?

For it does look like you did show us how you see the world and we did understand that (or, at least, you didn’t seem to claim otherwise). It’s just that we think you see things incorrectly and offer that “(name removed by moderator)ut” showing that your position is badly supported. Isn’t that the “(name removed by moderator)ut” that you hoped to be helpful for searching for the truth?

 

[blase6]

That doesn’t look right… What kind of (name removed by moderator)ut of other people were you trying to get? And why is showing others how you see the world important for that (name removed by moderator)ut? Shouldn’t it be more important to find out how others see it, if you are interested in their (name removed by moderator)ut?

For it does look like you did show us how you see the world and we did understand that (or, at least, you didn’t seem to claim otherwise). It’s just that we think you see things incorrectly and offer that “(name removed by moderator)ut” showing that your position is badly supported. Isn’t that the “(name removed by moderator)ut” that you hoped to be helpful for searching for the truth?

Next to nothing of what anyone has said to me was convincing. All it showed me is that their arguments are based on a strict scholar’s Catholic philosophy which will not recognize the validity of differing viewpoints. Yes I am aware that it is not permissible to dissent in matters of faith and morals, but some on here take it too far, such as insisting that Aquinas’ philosophy is 100% correct and any view in opposition to his is incorrect.

My own conviction which leads to my conclusions is difficult to express accurately in words. Often I will not accept opposing arguments simply because of this.

 

[MPat]

Next to nothing of what anyone has said to me was convincing.

Given what you say later that is not very useful… But anyway, you said wanted “(name removed by moderator)ut”, not “convincing (name removed by moderator)ut”. Listening to wrong and unconvincing arguments can also help one to reach truth (to some extent). Refusing to listen is less helpful.

All it showed me is that their arguments are based on a strict scholar’s Catholic philosophy which will not recognize the validity of differing viewpoints. Yes I am aware that it is not permissible to dissent in matters of faith and morals, but some on here take it too far, such as insisting that Aquinas’ philosophy is 100% correct and any view in opposition to his is incorrect.

Yes, you can expect that many participants will be leaning towards Thomism. That is useful if you would like to find out more about it.

Also, if you think that there is something wrong with “philosophy which will not recognize the validity of differing viewpoints”, are you recognising “validity” (or, perhaps, “value”?) of differing viewpoints? Like that same Thomism that you are rejecting so strongly?

My own conviction which leads to my conclusions is difficult to express accurately in words. Often I will not accept opposing arguments simply because of this.

I am afraid there isn’t much we can do about it. But have you considered that it could be a sign that those convictions are wrong?

 

[blase6]

Given what you say later that is not very useful… But anyway, you said wanted “(name removed by moderator)ut”, not “convincing (name removed by moderator)ut”. Listening to wrong and unconvincing arguments can also help one to reach truth (to some extent). Refusing to listen is less helpful.

Yes, you can expect that many participants will be leaning towards Thomism. That is useful if you would like to find out more about it.

Also, if you think that there is something wrong with “philosophy which will not recognize the validity of differing viewpoints”, are you recognising “validity” (or, perhaps, “value”?) of differing viewpoints? Like that same Thomism that you are rejecting so strongly?

I am afraid there isn’t much we can do about it. But have you considered that it could be a sign that those convictions are wrong?

Sure. But like I said, I am more inclined to believe what I experience, than what someone else experiences and tells me is the “real truth”.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Perhaps you should give up philosophizing. Or take a break from it for six months or so. Why not just ignore all the debates, lectures, authors which are philosophizing? Spend six months just reading the lives of the Saints, the Bible, the Catechism and attending to your spiritual life? And take up a hobby, get some new interests. Let your mind clear for awhile.

Linus2nd

It’s probably a tempting and perhaps even reasonable thought. But, speaking for myself, philosophy is life. Living without thinking about it makes no sense to me.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I do have faith. I just don’t have certainty. I see there is a difference. Asserting that I don’t have faith doesn’t really help me, it just provokes me to lose my faith, which I try to resist.

You do not need certainty. You only need probability. Ask anyone who does anything. They’re not certain of anything. Not certain their train won’t have an accident. Not certain they won’t give someone food poisoning. We certainly can’t be certain of physical theories. Because you can think of ANYTHING that might interrupt the normal, probable occurrences.

But living life looking for absolute certainty is just not possible, for anyone, not even Christians. But even though the Resurrection is only probable, and not absolutely certain in the sense of obviousness, it is still probable - just as it is probable that a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, or that the American colonies had a war for their independence with Britain. Now, maybe the world wasn’t created until last Tuesday. But why should we believe that? Does the world exist simply because I perceive it to? Maybe. But why should I believe that? In contrast, the world contains things that seem to be older than me, and that I don’t seem to like. Why would those things exist?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m late to the party, but the OP confuses me.

Why can’t a thing have parts? Aren’t you just denying that things have parts? If so, then what is the basis for that denial?

Perhaps your worry is about how we distinguish objects from one another?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That which is physical comprises matter, or energy, or both. (or any other physical force).
That which is not physical is spiritual. A substance is an idea. An idea is not physical, so it must be spiritual.

Consider the arrangement of a tic-tac-toe board of the following shape:

XOX
OXO
OXO

The composition of that board is easily repeatable, even with different components – X’s or O’s made of different pens, on different materials, etc. And yet the composition of that board is obviously a *physical *property, because it involves space. One cannot imagine something purely spiritual that occupies SPACE.

Call the composition of the board the “Form” of the board. Now understand that many objects have forms, in this sense. When the atoms that make up my hand change, the form of my hand remains the same. When I get a finger amputated, the form of my hand changes.

The “essence” of an object is those aspects of its form that must remain the same, in order for it to remain “the same thing”. So if I died, I would not be “the same thing” anymore.

Does this help?

 

[blase6]

Consider the arrangement of a tic-tac-toe board of the following shape:

XOX
OXO
OXO

The composition of that board is easily repeatable, even with different components – X’s or O’s made of different pens, on different materials, etc. And yet the composition of that board is obviously a *physical *property, because it involves space. One cannot imagine something purely spiritual that occupies SPACE.

Call the composition of the board the “Form” of the board. Now understand that many objects have forms, in this sense. When the atoms that make up my hand change, the form of my hand remains the same. When I get a finger amputated, the form of my hand changes.

The “essence” of an object is those aspects of its form that must remain the same, in order for it to remain “the same thing”. So if I died, I would not be “the same thing” anymore.

Does this help?

My point is that the “form” exists only in your mind. you are not actually seeing form. And if you hold (not saying you in particular do) that substance is based on form, then you are denying the definition of the Eucharist.

Simply, when it comes to the physical, substance is based on perception.

 

[blase6]

I’m late to the party, but the OP confuses me.

Why can’t a thing have parts? Aren’t you just denying that things have parts? If so, then what is the basis for that denial?

Perhaps your worry is about how we distinguish objects from one another?

A good example is with your own body. Some matter every second is leaving your body, and new matter is being absorbed into your body. This leads to serious problems with thinking that the specific atoms in your body objectively belong to you. So the boundary which separates your body from other physical objects is an illusion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My point is that the “form” exists only in your mind. you are not actually seeing form. And if you hold (not saying you in particular do) that substance is based on form, then you are denying the definition of the Eucharist.

Simply, when it comes to the physical, substance is based on perception.

Quite the contrary, there is an objective reality of substances. You could either say that substance is true, but not verifiable; or you could say that substance exists in the mind of God. Either option is objective.

Am I denying the Eucharist? Hardly! I’m explaining the Eucharist. Bread can become Jesus’s body because it can participate in a Form that it previously did not participate in – just as a new atom gets added to myself sometimes after I eat. The atom suddenly becomes a part of something that has my DNA – i.e. becomes part of me.

If you claim that substance is based on perception, could you please clearly explain your argument, preferably using numbered premises?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A good example is with your own body. Some matter every second is leaving your body, and new matter is being absorbed into your body. This leads to serious problems with thinking that the specific atoms in your body objectively belong to you. So the boundary which separates your body from other physical objects is an illusion.

Not every atom in my body is part of me. Only those which are parts of cells.

 

[blase6]

Quite the contrary, there is an objective reality of substances. You could either say that substance is true, but not verifiable; or you could say that substance exists in the mind of God. Either option is objective.

Sorry, at this point saying that objective substance of physical objects is an assumption.

Am I denying the Eucharist? Hardly! I’m explaining the Eucharist. Bread can become Jesus’s body because it can participate in a Form that it previously did not participate in – just as a new atom gets added to myself sometimes after I eat. The atom suddenly becomes a part of something that has my DNA – i.e. becomes part of me.

Again, there is the problem of bodily composition not being exact.

If you claim that substance is based on perception, could you please clearly explain your argument, preferably using numbered premises?

Ah, numbered premises, Bahman-style. Let’s see:

1. You experience the physical world through: a two dimensional image, two different senses which indicate chemical composition (smell and taste), vibrations from two sides, and a complicated feeling system which seems to be three dimensional.
2. Especially through sight, your brain separates the whole image into groups based on how the map of colors seems to indicate separate entities.
3. You are not actually seeing different objects, you are seeing a map of colors. Your brain/mind causes you to think you are seeing separate objects.
4. Therefore you have no experience through senses of objective physical substance, it is only what your brain/mind presents to you as a way of making sense of the combination of senses.
5. This is evidenced further by looking deeper into the world and finding that the distinction between “objects” continually disappears, as we find fewer and fewer types of particles which make up macroscopic objects.

 

[blase6]

Not every atom in my body is part of me. Only those which are parts of cells.

But you can take this idea to the extreme. What about the dead cells that cover your skin and make up your hair and nails? Are they part of your body if they do not have living cells? What about the fluid in your body? Is that part of “your body”? What about the lining of the living cells in your body? If they break off of the main cell, are they still “your body”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry, at this point saying that objective substance of physical objects is an assumption.

I wasn’t trying to prove it. I’m saying it is possible. If it is possible, your argument is refuted.

Again, there is the problem of bodily composition not being exact.

It is exact. Anything with your living DNA is part of your body. Simple enough, and very exact.

Ah, numbered premises, Bahman-style. Let’s see:

1. You experience the physical world through: a two dimensional image, two different senses which indicate chemical composition (smell and taste), vibrations from two sides, and a complicated feeling system which seems to be three dimensional.

Sure.

1. Especially through sight, your brain separates the whole image into groups based on how the map of colors seems to indicate separate entities.

Sure.

1. You are not actually seeing different objects, you are seeing a map of colors. Your brain/mind causes you to think you are seeing separate objects.

This is question-begging. Your CONCLUSION is that I am not seeing different objects. That’s what you’ve been trying to convince us of. You can’t assume that in your premise.

1. Therefore you have no experience through senses of objective physical substance, it is only what your brain/mind presents to you as a way of making sense of the combination of senses.

This follows from #3, and so the weakness of #3 is imported here.

1. This is evidenced further by looking deeper into the world and finding that the distinction between “objects” continually disappears, as we find fewer and fewer types of particles which make up macroscopic objects.

I’m fine with this, in the case of tables, chairs, or pianos. But organisms are fundamentally different. Organisms clearly have a nature that unites the various parts of their bodies.

 

[blase6]

I wasn’t trying to prove it. I’m saying it is possible. If it is possible, your argument is refuted.

No, my argument is not refuted. You have to show how objective substance exists in physical objects in a way that is independent from perception.

It is exact. Anything with your living DNA is part of your body. Simple enough, and very exact.

Read my response to your other post.

This is question-begging. Your CONCLUSION is that I am not seeing different objects. That’s what you’ve been trying to convince us of. You can’t assume that in your premise.

There is nothing in your optical sensory organs that distinguishes between separate entities in a three-dimension field. All your eyes show you is a two-dimensional map of colors with varying intensity.

I’m fine with this, in the case of tables, chairs, or pianos. But organisms are fundamentally different. Organisms clearly have a nature that unites the various parts of their bodies.

Nope, sorry, there is no distinction on the physical level between the atoms which make up an organism’s body, and the atoms in inanimate matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, my argument is not refuted. You have to show how objective substance exists in physical objects in a way that is independent from perception.

This is fallacious. In order for me to refute your argument, I do not have to explain how objective substance in physical objects is possible. You have to explain why it is impossible. You have not done so.

(Berkeley has an interesting argument for the point you’re trying to make, by the way. Perhaps you’d be interested in reading his Dialogues.)

But you can take this idea to the extreme. What about the dead cells that cover your skin and make up your hair and nails? Are they part of your body if they do not have living cells? What about the fluid in your body? Is that part of “your body”? What about the lining of the living cells in your body? If they break off of the main cell, are they still “your body”?

Dead cells are not parts of my body, since they’re not alive. LIVING CELLS are part of my body, nothing else. Many things inside my body are not a part of me.

There is nothing in your optical sensory organs that distinguishes between separate entities in a three-dimension field. All your eyes show you is a two-dimensional map of colors with varying intensity.

OK. I never denied this. It does not follow from this premise that I do not see things like other people. When I say “I see Bob”, I am obviously not saying that the images on my retina ARE Bob. I’m saying that these images come FROM Bob.

Nope, sorry, there is no distinction on the physical level between the atoms which make up an organism’s body, and the atoms in inanimate matter.

Huh? I never said there was. I said that such atoms could be PART of a cell, in which case they are PART of an organism. This would be a mereological difference from other atoms, but not a physical one. The hydrogen in me is indistinguishable (in itself) from other hydrogen. Its relational properties are different, though.

Please realize that millions of people have had these thoughts before you. People have been working on this problem since Aristotle. I’m trying to give you a flavor of how they might argue, even though I have some sympathy for your conclusion. You’re very bright, obviously. I think you would benefit from a class in logic, though – which would make your skills even sharper.

 

[blase6]

Dead cells are not parts of my body, since they’re not alive. LIVING CELLS are part of my body, nothing else. Many things inside my body are not a part of me.

So your hair and nails are just “contaminants” on “your body” which is objectively different from dead matter? Why can’t your body just be a relative concentration of matter through which your soul experiences the physical world?

OK. I never denied this. It does not follow from this premise that I do not see things like other people. When I say “I see Bob”, I am obviously not saying that the images on my retina ARE Bob. I’m saying that these images come FROM Bob.

The idea of an objective physical object “Bob” is present only in your mind. Your sight just includes an image which you associate with “Bob”.

Huh? I never said there was. I said that such atoms could be PART of a cell, in which case they are PART of an organism. This would be a mereological difference from other atoms, but not a physical one. The hydrogen in me is indistinguishable (in itself) from other hydrogen. Its relational properties are different, though.

Others have said this and I don’t buy it. Substance has to be at the basic level of this vs. that. Combinations don’t make objectively new substances.

Please realize that millions of people have had these thoughts before you. People have been working on this problem since Aristotle. I’m trying to give you a flavor of how they might argue, even though I have some sympathy for your conclusion. You’re very bright, obviously. I think you would benefit from a class in logic, though – which would make your skills even sharper.

Most schools don’t teach logic classes anymore. I would have to go out of my way to find a pretentious school, which would be expensive. Better to just get a reputable summary and study it by yourself.