Q&A: Properties of Objects
Properties of Objects
Question
Hello and blessings. a0
In the past you wrote that if a tree falls in the forest and there was no consciousness to hear it, then it did not make a sound, since sound is a mental phenomenon. I agree with that, but from this the following question occurred to me: if that is the case, then everything I perceive through my other senses is also mental phenomena (colors, smells, the sensation of touch, and even height and width), and therefore these do not exist without a perceiving consciousness. My conclusion from this is that without consciousness, there is nothing except the material object itself. Do you agree with this conclusion?
The second question that naturally follows is: what is that object? If we go with Descartes’ distinction, then the material object is extension, whereas the spiritual object is something non-extended. Do you agree with this distinction? And if so, what does “extension” mean? I find it hard to understand this concept without sensory perceptionextension, for me, is occupying a place in space, and if so then I would need to run into that object, that is, to touch it, and thus I am still perceiving the object through my senses (that is, as a mental phenomenon), and that raises the question of what the actually existing material object really is. a0
Thanks in advance
Answer
Absolutely not, as I explained in detail in Two Carts. These properties are the ways in which objects appear to us, but each of them has a root in the real world. So for example, color is a cognitive expression of the crystalline structure of the material, which is a property in the world itself. Therefore, in the world there is a table made of matter with a certain crystalline structure, and that structure causes the table to appear red to us. So in the world itself there is a table, and it has a crystalline structure and other properties. The manifestations of those properties are of course a matter of the perceiving consciousness.
Discussion on Answer
Forget Descartes and Spinozas vague and confusing concepts. Theyre just word games.
Running into an object is nothing more than encountering it through the sense of touch. That is no different from any other sensory awareness of it.
Your question about the nature of the material object is based on a misunderstanding. You are probably expecting an answer in terms of its properties/characteristics. But those belong to our cognition. The object is what has the properties. You wont be able to say anything about its nature. Not because of limitations of our perception, but because the question is not defined. Perception, by definition, deals with the ways the object appears to us, not with the thing in itself. I elaborated on this in the series of columns on whether the world exists, and in the columns on Zeitlin and others.
I understand, and the truth is that I wasnt aiming for an answer in terms of properties (the terminology really is a bit confusing), but for a broader question: spiritual objects are objects that are not in space, and material objects, as I understand it, are. That means a material object must have some kind of expression in the material world, an expression that does not depend on us and on our perception, and the question is what that expression is (assuming it isnt a spiritual object that we have no material grasp of).
Maybe the answer is that we have no way of knowing, because we encounter only the properties, and about the object we can say nothing except that it exists; but if you do have some answer, Id be glad to hear it.
There is also the possibility that a material object is, at root, spiritual (for example, in some version of Platonism, say the Idea of tables), and then that answer would make the whole discussion unnecessary
You wrote that you understood, and then repeated the same question. So Ill repeat the same answer. Anything you say about the thing in itself will be in terms of its properties. So what kind of answer are you expecting? And no, a material object is material, not spiritual. And what distinguishes them is that the former has physical expressions (properties, characteristics). You are again confusing the object that has properties with an object devoid of properties.
Okay, then just one last thing: can we say that part of the meaning of speaking about a material object versus a spiritual object is that the properties that can apply to the material one are material, and the properties that can apply to the spiritual one are spiritual?
And this is basically an argument against materialism: attributing mental properties with intentionality and qualia to a material object (for example the brain or a certain neuron) is a categorical mistake
That is of course a categorical mistake, but that is not the debate. Those who attribute qualia to the brain argue that these are physical properties. To my mind that is a foolish claim, but that is their position.
Right, that was my intention (I assumed, without stating the assumption, that qualia are a mental characteristic, and therefore it cannot be a characteristic of a material object).
Thanks for the answers
I understand. Unfortunately I still havent had time to read all your writings 🙂
If so, then can one say that the physical properties of a given material object generate mental properties in us? For example, a sound wave (can we say that this is an object?) exists in the world itself, and it has the property of a certain wavelength, and that property creates in my consciousness the mental property of hearing a certain note?
Also, my second question still remains: properties are one thing, but they are properties of some object. So what is the nature of the material object in your view? If it is indeed something extended as Descartes described it, it seems that one can “run into” objects, that is, really encounter them the way my sense of touch encounters objects in everyday life. So is the material object a kind of stuff whose only (essential) property is occupying space?