hunterrose Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yes, [“every other kind of entity acts in a certain way and only in a certain way”] is [perceptually self-evident.]But doesn’t that include things that we can’t even perceive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) But doesn’t that include things that we can’t even perceive? Are you entertaining the idea that there might be things we can't perceive that do not act in a specific way and are not what they are? Question: Is it possible you might one day find a square-circle? Will there ever be a perception not made by a perceiver, who is not sperate from what he is perceiving? Edit:spelling Edited October 8, 2009 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 But doesn’t that include things that we can’t even perceive? Yes, it does. That is because that statement uses the word 'entity' as a concept, and concepts are open-ended in their referents. The statement is first reached based on the perceptually self-evident, then is given the wider sense by being stated in explicitly conceptual terms. Here is a thread which had a discussion of 'entity' as used in a primary and extended sense. Entities which are not directly perceptual are entities in the extended sense, but are still entities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Are you entertaining the idea that there might be things we can't perceive that do not act in a specific way and are not what they are?Oh no, just that there are things that aren’t perceptually self-evident. Concepts are open-ended in their referents… Entities which are not directly perceptual are entities in the extended sense, but are still entities.I agree. But when you say "based on the perceptually self-evident," you don't mean that every entity is directly perceived to act in a certain way and only in a certain way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I agree. But when you say "based on the perceptually self-evident," you don't mean that every entity is directly perceived to act in a certain way and only in a certain way? For entities that are perceived, yes I do mean that. Every entity acts in a certain way and only in a certain way, so if it is perceived at all and to the extent it is perceived its identity and actions are observed. This is the Law of Identity and the Law of Causality applied to the perceptually given. Even when you don't yet know the Laws of Identity and Causality they are still true and implicit in all that is witnessed. The Laws of Identity and Causality also apply to entities that known to exist only by inference or instrument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Does that mean that we agree that some things are not directly perceived to act in a certain way and only in a certain way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I think so. There is not a conflict between not being omniscient and the universal applicability of the Laws of Identity and Causality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.