Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

A problem for science? This piece of wax..

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:32:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In what little he wrote I consider Descartes one the best philosophers of all time.

This piece of wax' is a legendary paragraph that has still remained un- answered and it points to a huge whole in the way we think of physical entities today.

This Piece of Wax… (exert from The Mediations 1641)

‘This piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb: it has not yet lost all the honey flavour. It retains some of the scent of the flowers from which it was collected. Its color, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and yet cold' it is easy to touch. If you rap on it with your knuckle, it will emit a sound. In short, everything is present in it that it enables for a body to be known as distinctly as possible. But notice that, as I am speaking, I am bringing it close to the fire. The remaining traces of the honey flavour are disappearing; the scent is vanishing; the colour is changing; the original shape is disappearing. Its size is increasing; it's becoming liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it. And now, when you rap on it, it no longer emits a sound. Does the wax still remain?' Rene Descartes

Notice all physical aspects of the wax have change or disappeared. But yet we intuitively think of it as the same piece of wax.

Is this problematic to the way we think of a physical universe?

Is this a problem for science?

Does the wax still remain? If so, in what sense?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the problem?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:32:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
In what little he wrote I consider Descartes one the best philosophers of all time.

This piece of wax' is a legendary paragraph that has still remained un- answered and it points to a huge whole in the way we think of physical entities today.

This Piece of Wax… (exert from The Mediations 1641)

‘This piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb: it has not yet lost all the honey flavour. It retains some of the scent of the flowers from which it was collected. Its color, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and yet cold' it is easy to touch. If you rap on it with your knuckle, it will emit a sound. In short, everything is present in it that it enables for a body to be known as distinctly as possible. But notice that, as I am speaking, I am bringing it close to the fire. The remaining traces of the honey flavour are disappearing; the scent is vanishing; the colour is changing; the original shape is disappearing. Its size is increasing; it's becoming liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it. And now, when you rap on it, it no longer emits a sound. Does the wax still remain?' Rene Descartes

Notice all physical aspects of the wax have change or disappeared. But yet we intuitively think of it as the same piece of wax.

Is this problematic to the way we think of a physical universe?

Is this a problem for science?

Does the wax still remain? If so, in what sense?

Wax defined specifically as being scented as x, solid as x, emitting sounds of x, disappears.

The referent (rigid designator) for wax, however, maintains coherency even as you change its traits (meaning it obtains across all possible worlds). Coincidentally, this makes it necessary a posteriori knowledge (cool, huh?).

It's like how we can coherently say "Shakespeare plagiarized Romeo and Juliet" even if our definition of Shakespeare at the start of the conversation is "the Elizabethean playwright famous for writing plays like Romeo and Juliet."

I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:28:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the proble

none of those things are based from sense perceptions.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:28:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the proble

none of those things are based from sense perceptions.

why does sense perception matter when we have the knowledge to think beyond that?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:30:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:28:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the proble

none of those things are based from sense perceptions.

You can look at the molecular structure of wax.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:31:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:30:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:28:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the proble

none of those things are based from sense perceptions.

You can look at the molecular structure of wax.

And I mean literally LOOK. There's electron microscopes.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can use an answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?

Fixed.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:31:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:30:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:28:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the proble

none of those things are based from sense perceptions.

You can look at the molecular structure of wax.

And I mean literally LOOK. There's electron microscopes.

Anything visible is in colours which exist in the mind all ready, even when looked on. we consider the light in wave length. which are not phyical BUT NUMARIC relations.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:35:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?

Word for word.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the problem?

The Idea is that what is left is logical and mathmatical relations, but never that of actual phyisical perceptions. The physical perception are at best the sensation cause when information hit our sense, but in the end all we get is mathatical/logical relations.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 11:57:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the problem?

I realized another reason it might seem simplistic. That is because we tend to forget all our perceptions are from within the mind. Not directly. Information transduced from electron action potential which go to your mind and then translated into mind. and even that all known from within the mind already.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:17:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:34:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:30:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:28:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the proble

none of those things are based from sense perceptions.

You can look at the molecular structure of wax.

And I mean literally LOOK. There's electron microscopes.

Anything visible is in colours which exist in the mind all ready, even when looked on. we consider the light in wave length. which are not phyical BUT NUMARIC relations.

Numaric?

Not familiar with the term.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:23:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Edit
At 4/11/2012 11:19:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
Sorry if this sounds hopelessly simplistic and the complexity of the question flew over my head...but,..Matter is made of molecules. Molecules have distinct identities. No matter what phase the object is in, so long as those molecules are intact, they maintain that identity. All of what you described were physical changes. I can't fathom what reason you wouldn't still call it wax.

On the other hand, if there is a chemical change, that changes the identity. In which case we give the substance a new name.

Where's the problem?

I realized another reason it might seem simplistic. It that is because we tend to forget all our perceptions are from within the mind. External information with is transduced into electrons action potential which go to your brain and then translated into mind perception(that is at best). and even that is all known from within the mind already.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:05:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The best way to look at the problem is to ask how are we going from those perceptions to the other claims we make today. What is the jusification?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 10:40:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:05:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The best way to look at the problem is to ask how are we going from those perceptions to the other claims we make today. What is the jusification?

Bump
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 12:31:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 10:40:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:05:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The best way to look at the problem is to ask how are we going from those perceptions to the other claims we make today. What is the jusification?

Bump

What's Numaric?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 12:42:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 12:31:09 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 10:40:18 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:05:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The best way to look at the problem is to ask how are we going from those perceptions to the other claims we make today. What is the jusification?

Bump

What's Numaric?

As in number
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:59:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 11:35:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?

Word for word.

Word for word what?

Is that a "yes?" A "no?"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:09:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:59:13 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:35:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?

Word for word.

Word for word what?

Is that a "yes?" A "no?"

I am saying it went over your head. The idea was about the process of getting from those observation, to what we have now. You would spend about two week on this part in any metaphysics classs. The Idea is to think about. But we all have different minds, some are creative , some just do what others, too, and some do nothing at all.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 1:55:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:32:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
In what little he wrote I consider Descartes one the best philosophers of all time.

This piece of wax' is a legendary paragraph that has still remained un- answered and it points to a huge whole in the way we think of physical entities today.

This Piece of Wax… (exert from The Mediations 1641)

‘This piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb: it has not yet lost all the honey flavour. It retains some of the scent of the flowers from which it was collected. Its color, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and yet cold' it is easy to touch. If you rap on it with your knuckle, it will emit a sound. In short, everything is present in it that it enables for a body to be known as distinctly as possible. But notice that, as I am speaking, I am bringing it close to the fire. The remaining traces of the honey flavour are disappearing; the scent is vanishing; the colour is changing; the original shape is disappearing. Its size is increasing; it's becoming liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it. And now, when you rap on it, it no longer emits a sound. Does the wax still remain?' Rene Descartes

Notice all physical aspects of the wax have change or disappeared. But yet we intuitively think of it as the same piece of wax.

Is this problematic to the way we think of a physical universe?
Could you elaborate

Is this a problem for science?
No?

Does the wax still remain? If so, in what sense?
It really boils down to your definition of " the wax" .
If we are to meaningfully talk about it, we must have a clear idea of it in our mind, it must be defined.
Having defined it, we can evaluate whether the wax still remains.
If we were to define wax as a substance having certain properties, if those properties were satisfied then it would be wax.

Can you come up with a clear definition of wax on the basis of which the identity of the wax remains ambiguous?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:36:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 1:55:00 PM, marcuscato wrote:
At 4/11/2012 10:32:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
In what little he wrote I consider Descartes one the best philosophers of all time.

This piece of wax' is a legendary paragraph that has still remained un- answered and it points to a huge whole in the way we think of physical entities today.

This Piece of Wax… (exert from The Mediations 1641)

‘This piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb: it has not yet lost all the honey flavour. It retains some of the scent of the flowers from which it was collected. Its color, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and yet cold' it is easy to touch. If you rap on it with your knuckle, it will emit a sound. In short, everything is present in it that it enables for a body to be known as distinctly as possible. But notice that, as I am speaking, I am bringing it close to the fire. The remaining traces of the honey flavour are disappearing; the scent is vanishing; the colour is changing; the original shape is disappearing. Its size is increasing; it's becoming liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it. And now, when you rap on it, it no longer emits a sound. Does the wax still remain?' Rene Descartes

Notice all physical aspects of the wax have change or disappeared. But yet we intuitively think of it as the same piece of wax.

Is this problematic to the way we think of a physical universe?
Could you elaborate

Is this a problem for science?
No?

Does the wax still remain? If so, in what sense?
It really boils down to your definition of " the wax" .
If we are to meaningfully talk about it, we must have a clear idea of it in our mind, it must be defined.
Having defined it, we can evaluate whether the wax still remains.
If we were to define wax as a substance having certain properties, if those properties were satisfied then it would be wax.

Can you come up with a clear definition of wax on the basis of which the identity of the wax remains ambiguous?

A peice or wax as you would define it from your immediate perception of it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:36:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/17/2012 1:55:00 PM, marcuscato wrote:
At 4/11/2012 10:32:27 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
In what little he wrote I consider Descartes one the best philosophers of all time.

This piece of wax' is a legendary paragraph that has still remained un- answered and it points to a huge whole in the way we think of physical entities today.

This Piece of Wax… (exert from The Mediations 1641)

‘This piece of wax. It has been taken quite recently from the honeycomb: it has not yet lost all the honey flavour. It retains some of the scent of the flowers from which it was collected. Its color, shape, and size are manifest. It is hard and yet cold' it is easy to touch. If you rap on it with your knuckle, it will emit a sound. In short, everything is present in it that it enables for a body to be known as distinctly as possible. But notice that, as I am speaking, I am bringing it close to the fire. The remaining traces of the honey flavour are disappearing; the scent is vanishing; the colour is changing; the original shape is disappearing. Its size is increasing; it's becoming liquid and hot; you can hardly touch it. And now, when you rap on it, it no longer emits a sound. Does the wax still remain?' Rene Descartes

Notice all physical aspects of the wax have change or disappeared. But yet we intuitively think of it as the same piece of wax.

Is this problematic to the way we think of a physical universe?
Could you elaborate

Is this a problem for science?
No?

Does the wax still remain? If so, in what sense?
It really boils down to your definition of " the wax" .
If we are to meaningfully talk about it, we must have a clear idea of it in our mind, it must be defined.
Having defined it, we can evaluate whether the wax still remains.
If we were to define wax as a substance having certain properties, if those properties were satisfied then it would be wax.

Can you come up with a clear definition of wax on the basis of which the identity of the wax remains ambiguous?

A peice or wax as you would define it from your immediate perception of it.

If you seen a red box how would you define. it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:59:13 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:35:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?

Word for word.

Word for word what?

Is that a "yes?" A "no?"

I am saying it went over your head. The idea was about the process of getting from those observation, to what we have now. You would spend about two week on this part in any metaphysics classs. The Idea is to think about. But we all have different minds, some are creative , some just do what others, too, and some do nothing at all.

So you say "I've got a problem for science."

I respond with "No, that's not a problem. Good solutions have existed for several hundred years."

And you respond "Well, I was trying to get people to think. I wasn't actually looking for a real answer."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2012 2:54:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/17/2012 2:46:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/17/2012 1:09:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/17/2012 2:59:13 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:35:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:33:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/11/2012 11:31:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
I suggest Naming and Necessity by Kripke.

The Fool: Been there done that. The word Wax would be the rigit designator, secondy that is not related to 17th century. lastly I am not here to defined it. This is a topic for others to discuss. I am onlly answering clearifications.

You see, the philosophy of science has moved PAST the 17th century.

You're saying no one can answer unless the person who discovered it was born at a certain period of time?

Word for word.

Word for word what?

Is that a "yes?" A "no?"

I am saying it went over your head. The idea was about the process of getting from those observation, to what we have now. You would spend about two week on this part in any metaphysics classs. The Idea is to think about. But we all have different minds, some are creative , some just do what others, too, and some do nothing at all.

So you say "I've got a problem for science."

The Fool: ?

I respond with "No, that's not a problem. Good solutions have existed for several hundred years."

OVER
(8D)

And you respond "Well, I was trying to get people to think. I wasn't actually looking for a real answer."
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL