ON THE DEFINITION OF MATERIAL THINGS
TONY THOMAS
Tony Thomas was born in England in 1939,
and is a retired bureaucrat living in Brisbane,
Australia. He has an Australian wife, two
adult daughters, a dog and a cat. He holds
a degree in economics from the University
of Queensland. His interests are catholic,
and include: writing fiction, poetry, and
political diatribes to the newspapers. Other
abiding interests include political and social
philosophy, with occasional forays into logic
and the foundations of mathematics. His politics
are left wing anarchism, but his activities
are restricted to the pen rather than the
sword. Tony is actually a well known poet,
writer, mathematician and logician of some
stature, though he modestly complains that
on the contrary, he is not only obscure -
but unknown, and should probably be described
as such. On this website his prose pieces
and poems attract an increasing number of
regular readers - so I reckon he is wrong
for once - enjoy. ( Editor.)
|
ON THE DEFINITION OF MATERIAL THINGS Tony
Thomas
It is clear from the definition of the word
'thing' that the word is not restricted to
material things (definition 2) but applies
to events as well (definition 3). Therefore
its use in philosophical discussion requires
some clarification. The relevant categories
are: material things, events and the referents
of any nouns not included in the first two
categories. The three terms can be denoted
by 'material things', 'events' and 'other
things'.
General existential statements can be made
in respect of each category as follows:
Material things exist Events exist (happen
or occur) Other things exist, happen or occur
Examples of particular existential statements
within these categories might be:
The Moon exists The last transit of Venus
occurred on June 8 2004 Einstein invented
the Theory of Relativity
It is clear from these examples that the
word 'exist' has a different meaning as applied
to each category.
The first statement is rather general and
depends for its truth on empirical observation
and agreement between the relevant observers
that the subject is he same for each observer.
If an astronomer declares that the Earth
has two moons, a visible one and an invisible
one, he would be required to provide evidence
of the material existence of the second moon.
The existence of this second moon would have
to be confirmed by any independent observer
who was capable of the special observations
required to reveal the hidden moon.
The second case differs from the first in
that the transit is restricted to observers
on the Earth's surface, and does not apply
to observers on the Moon. The transit is
a peculiar kind of event in that it does
not involve the transformation of a thing
of type (1) but rather the relative position
of three objects: the Earth, the Sun and
Venus. This is not essentially different
from the shuffling of a pack of cards, where
the pack remains the same 'thing' but has
a different arrangement after the shuffling
has been done. This example reveals the arbitrary
nature of some kinds of things that have
independent parts that are themselves things
of type (1).
The third example has for its subject a deceased
person and for its object an idea. Acceptance
of the sentence as meaningful (which it is)
requires the critic to accept both the previous
existence of the person Einstein (a type
(1) thing now mostly dissipated into its
atomic parts) and of the type (3) thing called
The Theory of Relativity. This theory, like
any other, does not exist as either a type
(1) or a type (2) object but as a possible
brain state in the bodies of sufficiently
educated humans. The existence of this brain
state is a type (2) existence.
In the first case, the existence of the Moon
depends on the brain states of the observers,
in a similar way to the dependence of The
Theory of Relativity on a different kind
of brain state. Observations of the moon
do involve the senses, whereas understanding
The Theory of relativity does not require
such an interaction. However both involve
events in the form of neural transformations.
The assertion, "the Moon exists"
can be made without the brain states associated
with observing the Moon, but depends for
its truth on the 'existence' (type (3) meaning
of exist) of such observations, either by
the speaker or by other reliable observers.
The statement can be true when there are
no extant brain states corresponding to a
Moon observation. This kind of fossilised
truth is called knowledge.
What has been argued is that statements that
material bodies exist depend for their truth
on observations, and that these observations
involve ephemeral brain states and longer
term brain states (memories and knowledge).
To say that so-and-so exists is merely to
say that certain commonly occurring brain
states suggest that there is a permanent
cause of the sensation associated with the
object concerned. What is actually being
asserted is the 'existence' or recurrence
of the brain states rather than the supposed
cause of the states.
Under category (3) one must include such
important phenomena as hunger, thirst, desire,
pain, fear, joy, anger and many other "ills
that flesh is heir to". The statement,
"pain exists" can be inferred from
the statement, "I am in pain".
The existence referred to is the experience
of the pain. This is analogous to saying,
"I see the Moon" meaning "I
am experiencing a visual sensation that I
recognise as the Moon". The elision
from experiencing the sensation to asserting
the existence of what is supposed to be the
cause of the sensation underpins what is
meant by a type (1) existential assertion.
The moon exists neither more nor less that
the pain of toothache, because the supposed
existence of a cause of a sensation cannot
be proved beyond doubt.
In the case of the toothache, a simple experiment
is possible. Pressing on the tooth increases
the pain and demonstrates a definite connection
between a physical thing (the tooth) and
the action of touching the tooth with a finger.
However, the connection between tooth and
finger remains indirect since the sensation
in the finger is just as subjective as the
pain in the tooth. Similarly, any images
in the mirror of the tooth being probed are
equally subjective, being mediated through
the sense of sight.
From the above analysis, it is clear that
all three meanings of 'exist' are necessary
for comprehensively describing human experience
of 'the world'. The assertion that only type
(3) existence has ontological significance
ignores the close relationship between the
three kinds of existence statements. All
the statements of existence depend of subjective
mediation
The word 'exist' has been defined above in
three different senses so it will now be
misleading to declare simply that x exists
or does not exist without specifying the
domain of x. The three chosen domains are
(1) material things including persons, (2)
events and (3) the referents of any nouns
not included under (1) and (2).
It is now clear the word 'exist' depends
for its meaning on the classes of things
to which it applies. What is lacking is an
explanation of what links together the three
kinds of things. Esher's etching* 'Three
Worlds' provides a graphic analogy for the
three classes. The lowest world is represented
by the fish, seen beneath the water of the
lake. The second level is the surface of
the water on that float fallen leaves. The
third level is the reflection of the trees
from which the leaves have fallen. The following
interpretation of the etching is an invention
to illustrate the meaning of the three kinds
of existence under discussion. # See below
The water beneath the surface represents
category (3) and includes all those experiences
that are often called subjective, such as
pain, hunger, thirst, anger or fear. The
surface of the water with its sharp depiction
of the leaves represents all sensory experiences
such as sights; sounds and tactility that
represent what are called real things. This
stands for category (1). The reflections
in the water represent category (2) or the
events that constitute the real world ie
the leaves must have come from somewhere,
so we assume they came from the trees we
see reflected in the water. This 'reflected
world' is the realist assumption that there
is such a thing as the real world underlying
our sensory experiences.
The point of the analogy is that although
the leaves are most clear and convincing,
they are mediated through the senses. We
cannot ignore the lower world, because this
is the realm of pain and pleasure and all
those type (3) things that cannot be assigned
to the domain of the senses. The 'real' world
is depicted as a reflection, reminding us
that it is no more than a mental construct
based on ubiquitous sensory experience.
The key idea is that we do not experience
'the world' as a whole but only a patchwork
of sensation. The world idea, therefore,
is exactly that, an idea. What links the
three categories of things together is the
fact that they are experienced. Furthermore,
in the absence of experience there can be
nothing at all. 'Either experience (consciousness)
exists or nothing exists' is the first axiom
of ontology.
The question then arises, to which category
does 'experience' belong? The trite answer
is that it belongs with the fish in category
(3) but the better analogy is the water that
the fish swims in. Awareness or consciousness
is sui generis in that it refers to the basis
of all types of experience, so a fourth category
is required. The second axiom of ontology,
therefore, is 'consciousness exists'.
Axiom 1 Either consciousness exists or nothing
exists
Axiom 2 Consciousness exists
Theorem 1 Something exists
At this point, but not before, it is appropriate
to enquire about the division of consciousness
into the three kinds of 'things' as defined
above. To say that any of these things exist
rests on the basis of experiencing these
things. Reports of things by other things
are of secondary import, since such reports
are not primary data unmediated by the hypothesis
that there are things in the phenomenal field
that are capable of such reports.
The materialist hypothesis can now be introduced
by asking, "do the things of type (1)
exist independently of consciousness, and
if so what is the evidence for this? Historically,
this is an important question because the
answer affects the distinction between magic,
religion and science. However, what is of
primary concern here is to examine how the
meaning of the word 'exist' is being used.
So far, the meaning of 'exist' has been restricted
to the three categories of things as they
are experienced. The term does not extend
into the hypothetical realm of 'reality'.
Since the three categories clearly belong
in the domain of consciousness, an extension
of the meaning of 'exist' is now required
to signify that they belong to some extra
conscious domain. This will be denoted by
the term 'extra conscious existence' or ECE.
When we experience a tree (say) we can say,
"the tree exists", without qualifying
which kind of existence is intended. Since
the tree belongs to type (1) we know that
the tree behaves like other members of this
class. In particular, it seems to have a
kind of existence called material. This is
not true of all members of the class since
not all gases are detectable by the senses.
Assigning the category ECE to the tree adds
nothing to the experience of tree but does
require the assigning of that category to
most if not all of the members of category
(1) things. Once this has been done, the
existence of a material reality is accomplished.
This amounts to saying, "all category
(1) things are category ECE things".
It only remains to say "only category
(1) things are ECE things", to render
both category (1) or the ECE category redundant.
Once this has been accepted, it is soon forgotten
that category (1) things are just a subclass
of conscious experiences that have now been
reified by the category ECE.
In summary, a materialist is one who believes
that the ECE category confers independent
existence on the class of experiences denoted
by category (1). Furthermore, since categories
(2) and (3) do not belong to the ECE class,
they are deemed not to exist. So, to say
that category (2) and category (3) things
do not exist is to say no more than that
they have not been labelled as belonging
to the ECE category. This is meaningful insofar
as it distinguishes correctly between the
categories of experience and valuable if
the ECE category has the special status materialists
attribute to it. However, the creation of
a hypothetical domain of material things
does not of itself prove that there is in
fact any such separate domain.
Thing · n.
1 an object that one need not, cannot, or
does not wish to give a specific name to.
Ø (things) personal belongings or clothing.
2 an inanimate material object, especially
as distinct from a living sentient being.
Ø a living creature or plant. Ø a person
or animal in terms of one's feelings of pity,
approval, etc.: you lucky thing!
3 an action, activity, concept, or thought.
Ø (things) unspecified circumstances or matters.
4 (the thing) informal what is needed or
required. Ø what is socially acceptable or
fashionable.
5 (one's thing) informal one's special interest
or concern.
- PHRASES be on to a good thing informal
be in a situation that is pleasant, profitable,
or easy. be hearing (or seeing) things imagine
that one can hear (or see) something that
is not in fact there. a close (or near) thing
a narrow avoidance of something unpleasant.
do one's own thing informal follow one's
own inclinations regardless of others. have
a thing about informal have a preoccupation
or obsession with. there is only one thing
for it there is only one possible course
of action. (now) there's a thing informal
used as an expression of surprise.
- ORIGIN OE (also in the senses 'meeting'
and 'matter, concern'), of Gmc origin.
|