dmb to Dan: See, I'm talking about concrete particulars AS OPPOSED to abstract hypotheticals. The difference is that one is connected to empirical reality and the other one is not. Since the MOQ is a vert strong form of empiricism and its central term refers to the primary empirical reality, I think this is one of the more important points to make in a discussion about the status of objects.
Andre: Yes dmb and perhaps the notion of 'object permanence' is an unfortunate term given the reactions and implications given to it in this discussion. Dan asked (and rightly so):"What is the difference..." (between the hypothetical forest and the tree falling when no one is around and Don's dog dish). As for the forest notion...this is hypothetical and no certainties can be gained from it. I personally think that sort of thought experiment is not very helpful (in a pragmatic sense). As for the dog dish, it has been stated that Don has a dog with a dog dish but the question is whether the dog dish still exists when Don does not directly look at it ( or experiences it in whatever way).(I hope I have the gist of the scenarios correct). I'll first backtrack a bit: is there agreement that there is no division between the knower and the known in the MOQ? In other words that in pure, direct experience the object seen is not separate from the subject perceiving it? As William James expressed it:" The paper [dog dish] seen and the seeing of it are only two names for one indivisible fact...The paper [dog dish]is in the mind and the mind is around the paper [dog dish] because paper and mind are only two names that are given later to the one experience, when, taken in a larger world of which it form a part, its connections are traced in different directions ( The Writings of William James, McDermott p 156/7) But does that mean that the dog dish vanishes off the face of the earth when I am not around to perceive it or indeed that James' paper vanishes off the face of the earth when he closes his eyes for a moment? Can one imagine the horror of existence if that indeed be so? I would suggest that the dog dish or, for that matter James' piece of paper continue to exist but not as an object "out there". It has become part of our continuing/remembered experience and Don's dog dish is noted as a subjective intellectual pattern of value which we can expect to encounter again when we visit Don. Unless Don's dog has died and the dish has been thrown away which will adjust our experience accordingly. In the very same way that I expect the trains to run tomorrow to take me to work (should I be so lucky). If the trains do not run the experience gets adjusted accordingly. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
