logical bob wrote:To put it another way, if all our concerns with pointing things out and speaking of what they do and how they seem are worthless to your metaphysics then it follows that your metaphysics is worthless to our concerns. Please note that this isn't a dismissal of philosophy, but a dismissal of your metaphysics from philosophy.

jamest wrote:... The problems should now be apparent, since 'properties/attributes' are not what a thing is, but refer instead to what a thing does, or how a thing seems (is observed/experienced by another entity), or how a thing relates to other things in a comparative sense (for example, in a mathematical sense, as per the law of physics). Also, [extensional] definition via recognition doesn't tell you what something IS, it merely refers to how that thing consistently appears to observers/experiencers thereof.

... So, the bottom-line is that [our] definitions have got nothing to do with what a thing IS. That is, our definitions are devoid of ALL ontological/metaphysical significance.

jamest wrote:And there is good reason for this:

a) The observation/experience of something is ontologically distinct to any thing existing independently thereof, so our extensional ('pointed-finger': "there it is") meaning of existence is [therefore] worthless from the perspective of ontology/metaphysics.

jamest wrote:b) The properties/attributes/characteristics of something (the intensional meaning of something) do not refer to what a thing IS, either, but how a thing is.

... In other words, [our] definitions are utterly devoid of any substance value.

jamest wrote:existence cannot be defined... by logical default. So, you [now] know what you can do with your mockery and thumbs-ups, I hope.

JamesSS wrote: Take away all of how it behaves, and "it" isn't there at all.

Sendraks wrote:

JamesSS wrote: Take away all of how it behaves, and "it" isn't there at all.

What is the "behaviour" of a rock?

MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF ROCKS


We have already discussed the MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF MATERIALS on Earth and the subdivisions of Earth's interior based on the MECHANICAL PROPERTIES (as opposed to COMPOSITION OF MATERIALS).

In general, the MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR of materials can be considered to be their response when extreme forces are applied to them. On Earth, materials behave as BRITTLE SOLIDS, PLASTIC SOLIDS or FLUIDS.


BRITTLE DEFORMATION refers to the process of FRACTURING AND FAULTING when extreme forces are applied to a brittle solid.

PLASTIC DEFORMATION refers to the process of FOLDING when extreme forces are applied to a plastic solid.



Recall that rocks within the Earth behave as BRITTLE SOLIDS from the surface to depths of about 100 km (i.e. All rocks in the crust and those of the uppermost mantle exhibit brittle behavior). This region of Earth is called the LITHOSPHERE. The LITHOSPHERE includes all of the CRUST and a portion of the UPPER MANTLE (remember, crust and mantle are defined according the composition of rocks).

Rocks below 100 km behave as PLASTIC SOLIDS. This region is called the ASTHENOSPHERE. The transformation from brittle to plastic solids occurs because of the high temperatures and high pressures below 100 km. These conditions cause rocks to behave differently than at the surface.

In addition, we have discussed the concept of TECTONIC METAMORPHISM - that is, metamorphism associated primarily with CONVERGENT PLATE BOUNDARIES. At these boundaries, tremendous DIRECTED STRESSES can generate extraordinary PRESSURE along the zone of convergence, and this dramatic increase in pressure will cause rocks to behave as plastic solids, EVEN AT RELATIVELY SHALLOW DEPTHS in the lithosphere, perhaps as shallow as 10 KM!


•remember, we ordinarily don't consider rocks to behave as plastic solids until depths of about 100 km which marks the transition from the lithosphere to the asthenosphere.


•also recall that TEMPERATURE during TECTONIC METAMORPHISM is relatively low - the changes we associate with metamorphism are caused mainly by high pressure.


The geologic effect of these forces is to induce DEFORMATION of rocks which results in a variety of large-scale GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES.

Sendraks wrote:

JamesSS wrote: Take away all of how it behaves, and "it" isn't there at all.

What is the "behaviour" of a rock?

Affectance Ontology:

Existence is that which has affect or potential to affect.

a) Detectable Empiricism - We decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having affect. All of our senses function based on the affect that something else has upon them. We use equipment to increase our sensory ability, but still if nothing affects the equipment in any way, we declare that nothing was there.
b) Common Usage - In reality, people are already using the word "exist" to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case, the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected.
c) Support from Science - Science concluded long ago that in reality all existing things have at least some minuscule affect on all other things through chains of events.
d) Rational Relevance - If something has truly no affect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists in any other sense. We can propose trillions of things that might exist but don't have affect. What would be the point? It would be a waste of mind time.

But affect upon what?

To exist means to affect, which means to cause change, but what is being changed? What is being affected?

The answer is simply "other existence" (eg. You). That is easy enough. But look more carefully at what that means.

It is saying that existence, the compendium of affects, is merely the affecting other affects, affect upon affect. And that is the fundamental essence of all existence. It can be no other.

The very foundation of Metaphysics:
Existence ≡ Affects upon affects, Affectance, whatever complexity arises from that fundamental essence, and nothing else.

The rest of the story involves:
1) How does one measure this Affectance? - "Science".
2) How long has this Affectance been around" - "Cosmology"
3) How can this Affectance lend to our knowledge? - "Epistemology"
4) How can this Affectance be organized and understood? - "Ontology".
5) How can an understanding of Affectance relate to our lives? - "Psychology", "Sociology", "Economics",...

kennyc wrote:No, no, no, not rocks, stones!

JamesSS wrote:
Rocks stop/block things. It has the property of inertia (or momentum if moving). If you take that inertia away, it stops or blocks nothing. Also take away its gravitational affect and it is left with no affect at all. It doesn't even have shape any more. It no longer exists.

JamesSS wrote:Well, thank you, bob.

Sendraks wrote:

JamesSS wrote:
Rocks stop/block things. It has the property of inertia (or momentum if moving). If you take that inertia away, it stops or blocks nothing. Also take away its gravitational affect and it is left with no affect at all. It doesn't even have shape any more. It no longer exists.

You're simply talking about removing the rock. Which would have the same effect as removing its behaviour. The talk of removing the behaviour is redundant.

logical bob wrote:Mathematicians like to say that for a bounded set of real numbers there exists a least upper bound, or that there does not exist a largest prime number. Would you say they are abusing the word "exist," and if not how does your affective ontology account for this?

1) Physical Realm (physics)
2) Conceptual Realm (metaphysics)
3) Perceptual Realm (psychology)

Spinozasgalt wrote:Well, Thomas Aquinas...

JamesSS wrote:
My point was that if you say that a rock is not equivalent to its behavior, then you should be able to conceptually remove its behavior and still have something left, yet you don't. An object and that object's behavior (or "properties") are the same thing.

Sendraks wrote: I think the use of the word "behaviour" is what I have a problem with. "Properties" would be more appropriate.

JamesSS wrote:In the Conceptual Realm, each concept affects the others. A straight line affects what a square is. A curve affects what a circle is. And it is all merely a matter of convenience of thought. Without the Conceptual Realm, how does one speak of an ideal circle that can never physically exist?

JamesSS wrote:

Sendraks wrote: I think the use of the word "behaviour" is what I have a problem with. "Properties" would be more appropriate.

I was just relating to the post that raised the issue.