chefranden Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Please explain your answer in consideration of these questions. How would you objectively locate the fly without reference to human experience? If you can so locate the fly, why would it matter to a human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 D. Any or all of the above. -The fly is obviously IN the room from any frame of reference or perspective. -The fly is UNDER the ceiling from the perspective of gravity-- In other words (see diagram "below"), the object ON can REST UPON the plane, while the object UNDER cannot rest on the plane unless it has some method of countering the gravitational pull. Said in yet a different way: If the plane is stopping the object from traveling toward the center of gravity, then the object is "on" that plane. If it gets beyond it, it is "under". -But the fly is also ON the wall just as paint can be "on" a wall, or a stain is on a shirt. (No need to discuss the fly's perspective.) _______<object"ON">____________<plane> . . . . . <object"UNDER"> . . . . . <center of gravity> Why does it matter? Not sure what you're looking for here... All that matters to me is where the flyswatter is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOIL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I'm not convinced that it would technically be even possible for me speak "objectively" (that is, not unless I were so tall - or the ceiling were so low - as to allow me to reach out and "touch" the fly). I think usually the term 'objectively' implies there is some way to independently verify that the "object" actually exists outside of the mind of a single beholder. Since there appears to be only myself in the room (i.e. if we don't count the Holy Spirit who lives inside me - and God our Father who basically sees all), - so, if there is no other (mere mortal) like myself to independently verify my opinion about the supposed "fact" that indeed there is a fly somehow holding itself to the ceiling - then maybe we should not be using the word "objective" here? I may be able to use my physical eyes to convince myself that there is a fly up there - but unless I can "independently" verify that - that is what that little black thing really is - (for instance by reaching up and touching it) - then I thinking I should reserve the right to be (perhaps more than a little bit) skeptical about trying to convince myself (and certainly not anyone else) that I "objectively" know there is a fly on the ceiling (whether in or out of the room). -Dennis <edited in P.S. : oops just after posting this, I reread the opening post - and now I see there is a "link" there - I have not clicked on that link yet, so I entered this response - in ignorance of the link. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOIL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 OK ! Now I have just read (at least the opening sentence) of what is on the page, the link (in the signature) links to. Man, now that explains everything! (I'm so embarrased now!) It certainly helps when one reads the instructions! -Dennis (you're a sly dog, Chef, I'll say that fer ya!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Soil, the link is in my signature and is not related to the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOIL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Soil, the link is in my signature and is not related to the subject. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh...... So NOW he tells me! <he says as his elbow makes contact with the ribs of his neighbors> And you really think I'm going to fall for that one, eh? Just cuz you have been carrying that particular link in your signature for several weeks now - you think I don't know that you had this thread planned from the very beginning? Look I don't wear this "certified paranoid thinker" button, simply because I fell off a turnip truck and landed on it! I ken spot a trap when I see one - and in this case, the trap can be revealed even more "objectivly speaking" than any fly (one might speculate about being in some room - just cuz it's apparently stuck to the ceiling). We'll see just how soon you go and try to pull the wool over my eyes - next time! -Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOIL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Sorry about that outburst. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. (I was just practicing - in an attempt to get ready for how to act in my next Sunday School class - i.e. after I have been spending so much time on this site during the week). -Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MetaBud Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Please explain your answer in consideration of these questions. How would you objectively locate the fly without reference to human experience? Objectively? That is hard since all I seem to function at moment is human experience. Except when out of body but I still have human memoris and experience to 'relate' too. If you can so locate the fly, why would it matter to a human? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose that depends on which human it might 'matter' to. This reminds me of Carlos Castanda's Stopping the world. Carlos, under some influece of some mind altering psytropic drug, encoutered a beatle and realized at that moment that he was equal to the beatle. That the beatle was no better nor worse then he was. He called this, stopping the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MetaBud Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 OK ! Now I have just read (at least the opening sentence) of what is on the page, the link (in the signature) links to. TOO FUNNY!!!! I just read it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOIL Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Sorry Chef, I'll try to humor you here (now that I've made such of mess of the first page in this thread). I don't really know what you are getting at either (I started reading the "strong atheist" thread last night -offline- but I was just too sleepy to stick with it for very long, maybe that woulda helped out?). The only guess I can make at this point would seem to suggest that you may have wanted to say something more about the room (for instance whether it is air tight or maybe upside down or some other characteristics) n addition to the small number of explanatory words you used to setup the scene. I suppose it might matter to a human if there were only so much oxygen in the room, and the fly was also breathing some of it. (If the fly were not living and breathing in the room - then maybe the human could live a bit longer - (assuming neither could get out of the room) if he could stop that extra use of oxygen, but of course, that would require knowing exactly where the fly is (in order to kill it) - but if human experience is ruled out in the process of objectively locating it - then ......... I suppose my brainpower is running down. -Dennis <Whoever said it is better to say nothing (and let people think you are a fool) - rather than opening your typing fingers and convincing everyone?> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This whole thread: I didn't vote because I couldn't care less. If you really want me to vote, I'll have to think about whether or not I care enough to. Before I begin to think about this, however, I'll have to decide it it's worth thinking about. Being human, it's entirely possible that I could be bribed. <Whoever said it is better to say nothing (and let people think you are a fool) - rather than opening your typing fingers and convincing everyone?> Conceit causes more conversation than wit. -Duc de La Rochefoucauld- (1613-1680) Hint for SOIL: The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -Bertrand Russell I imagine I should simply reach for the flyswatter, as Kryten suggested but, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Isaac Asimov I think the fly and I may have to learn to get along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 This whole thread: I didn't vote because I couldn't care less. If you really want me to vote, I'll have to think about whether or not I care enough to. Before I begin to think about this, however, I'll have to decide it it's worth thinking about. Being human, it's entirely possible that I could be bribed. ... I think the fly and I may have to learn to get along. Best answer yet, Reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Actually it didn't occur to me that the question would elicit such Zen responses, especially from Dennis. After some reflection I should have added E. None of the above. None of the above is required, because that is the answer from an objective/absolute point of view isn't it? All the others require reference to human experience. I apologize for being obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I voted A, since I like to be contrarian. As for why I voted A in particular, the question states that the fly and I are in the room. This is the only established fact I've been given. It also states that the fly's feet are contacting the ceiling. But I couldn't vote for B,C, or D because: Do flies even have feet? Might the feet be detached? 'On the ceiling' and 'under the ceiling' appear contradictory so I couldn't allow for both to be true simultaneously. edit - Oh yes, as to why it might matter, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallStone Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Are the fly's feet still attached to the fly? <edit> Aww fudge. You beat me Dio. (AKA I didn't read the whole thread first) </edit> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 To me, "on the ceiling" implies contact; not necessarily being above. But the question I asked was, Do physical things actually touch"? I think I read somewhere that they don't, so to say that the fly is "on the ceiling" might potentially be false if it's implying contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Another way of putting the question. What is the point of of having a perfectly objective truth from a human (if that is possible) or an absolute truth from God if that is possible if in the end either truth can only be understood relative to human experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Whizz on it chef... I burned down the house to save the fly! n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Rhino Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Being objective I chose D. All of the above. It got me through school is why I chose it. I concede that my brain is far too Cartoon Netwrok to contimplate this any further but thanks for asking PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthWarrior Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 E. None of the above. There is no fly and no room. It is only a thought you created in your mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Euthyphro Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Chef wrote: If you can so locate the fly, why would it matter to a human? Because flies remind us to not leave dirty dishes on the floor. Hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurai Tailor Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 To me, "on the ceiling" implies contact; not necessarily being above. But the question I asked was, Do physical things actually touch"? I think I read somewhere that they don't, so to say that the fly is "on the ceiling" might potentially be false if it's implying contact. No, classical matter particles do not touch. They do, however, exchange force particles, the process of which we might just as well call "making contact." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts