What is the Empirical World?

... this is just the old question, "If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one to hear it, would it make a sound?" in new clothes ... the answer to that question is "no" ... when the tree falls it still makes pressure waves in the atmosphere, but since there is no human subject equipped with the sensory apparatus to convert those pressure waves into the human sense of "sound", there is in fact no sound ... and likewise for color ...

... yes, we can experience things which exist ... but that does not imply that this experience runs to any great depth - for example, you will never be able to know me like I know me ... nor does it imply that this experience is anything more than a sensory distortion of the "thing-in-itself" - for example (and to beat a dead horse), "red" ... so when you experience a thing which exists, does that exhaust all there is to know about it?



... it's more than a possibility - that's the way things are ... every one is subjectively experiencing the same mind-independent reality, but every one has his own subjective experience (the phenomenal world) ... and together, we construct an inter-subjective experience (the empirical world) ... there is considerable overlap between the the latter two, but they have their differences - as for the first, there's really not a whole lot we can infer about it (Schopenhauer tries to, but I think his logic is flawed) ...



... that's not quite the point ... the point is that our experience of what is mind-independently real is an aggregate of sensory impressions (the phenomenal world) which we know for a fact (through the social construction of the empirical world) does not exhaust all there is to know about the mind-independently real ... that the social construction of the empirical world is a work in progress also indicates that the empirical world does not exhaust all there is to know about the mind-independently real ... the question regarding whether or not the empirical world can ever be exhaustive, if answered, would simply give us an idea as to the limits of human knowledge (much like Godel's proof gives us an idea as to the limits of computable knowledge) ...

---------- Post added 12-31-2009 at 10:06 AM ----------



... this is just the old question, "If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one to hear it, would it make a sound?" in new clothes ... the answer to that question is "no" ... when the tree falls it still makes pressure waves in the atmosphere, but since there is no human subject equipped with the sensory apparatus to convert those pressure waves into the human sense of "sound", there is in fact no sound ... and likewise for color ...

But there's still a sound, even if there is no human there to experience it.

You disagree with this?

So the ball is no longer red? What happened? It was red, wasn't it? Is it still round, or did that go away because we don't feel it? Does it have any shape at all? How do these things happen to the ball when nothing happened to the ball? Does the color come back when the light is turned on? Maybe the ball blushes. I was under the impression that the ball is still red, but that we just cannot see the color. But I guess that's wrong, eh?

... yes, I disagree with this ... there are still pressure waves moving through the atmosphere, but there is no experience of sound ...

or unheard sounds.

... which is exactly correct - since sound is one way a human experiences atmospheric pressure waves, by definition there can be no unheard sounds! ...

but "red" is a human name for a human experience - take away the human and his experience, and there is no "red" ... heck, just take away the fully functioning sensory apparatus, and there is no "red" - that is, what color is this red ball to someone who is color-blind? ... does "red" (or color, for that matter) even exist for someone who is color-blind? ...

does "red" (or color, for that matter) even exist for someone who is color-blind? ...

Just because someone cannot experience some thing, does not mean that that thing does not exist. Suppose someone is blind and deaf and cannot see or hear a car coming at them in the middle of the street. Is that car not coming at them in the middle of the street simply because that person can't see or hear the car coming?

Just because someone cannot experience some thing, does not mean that that thing does not exist. Suppose someone is blind and deaf and cannot see or hear a car coming at them in the middle of the street. Is that car not coming at them in the middle of the street simply because that person can't see or hear the car coming?

Hmm. I have been told that there are sounds that dogs can hear that we cannot because they are higher pitched sounds. In fact there are dog whistles that emit such sounds. Is that a lie?

If a small minority of the human race were able to experience infra-red radiation as a visible colour, would it be appropriate for the rest of us to describe an object emitting (only) infra-red radiation as "infra-red in colour"?

Just because someone cannot experience some thing, does not mean that that thing does not exist.

... o. what it does mean is that higher frequency pressure waves in the atmosphere are not part of the phenomenal world,
---------- Post added 12-31-2009 at 03:27 PM ----------



...

I imagine that you are saying that there are sounds we cannot hear. That is just what I said. And if we had hearing as sharp as that of dogs' we would hear those sounds. Right?

I'll stick with the term "auditory experience" to avoid any further confusion"

You and Ken are arguing about two entirely different things. I already asked paul if he was a solipsist in disguise, hes not. Youre just not understanding what he is saying.

... okay, let me try to be perfectly clear: the basic assumption of both scientific realism and transcendental idealism is the existence of a mind-independent reality ... does that make it clear enough?

... the distinction (if there is one) being that I have been using the word "sound" to denote the auditory experience of atmospheric pressure waves (in contrast to the visual and tactile experiences of the same) ... so perhaps I'll stick with the term "auditory experience" to avoid any further confusion ...

There is no one experiencing the sound waves if no one is there. But there are still sound waves, even if no one is there. You agree or disagree? Sorry, I'm not understanding.

What you have been speaking about is a "personal reality". Until you make clear what that is, you haven't made things clear enough.

There is no one experiencing the sound waves if no one is there. But there are still sound waves, even if no one is there. You agree or disagree? Sorry, I'm not understanding.

I'm experiencing a finger enabled keyboard manipulation.

... if you prefer to call them "sound waves", that's fine ... the reason I've been avoiding doing so is that it leads to some non-intuitive situations where you can see sound (e.g., the shock wave of a fighter jet accelerating through Mach 1) and feel sound (e.g., standing next to the speakers at a rock concert) ... but yes, of course - even if there is no one there to hear it, the falling tree still makes "sound waves" ...