tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post1550244905478291119..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Dawkins on SeeingJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-81137337359603344252009-10-28T16:39:15.093-05:002009-10-28T16:39:15.093-05:00I never used the word "true". I said t...I never used the word "true". I said that the view of scientists (or of engineers in the case of building bridges) is no closer to reality than my naive view. It may be more exact; it may be more accurate. If more exact and more accurate mean "true" to you, then the scientists' view is truer. Now, before you jump on me, yes, I can make mistakes as can a s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-16355100000569615302009-10-28T16:25:33.136-05:002009-10-28T16:25:33.136-05:00Alright, I said I would ask my father, who is a ph...Alright, I said I would ask my father, who is a physicist, and here's what he said. First, light can't get into the empty spaces within atoms. It's apparently a tight squeeze in there. We can't see what doesn't get illuminated. Second, it's like what Wayne said--there are layers. So even if the rock is mostly empty space, the atoms are arranged in such a way that Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-70425970927592567782009-10-28T15:46:06.306-05:002009-10-28T15:46:06.306-05:00I don't think that my answer above is so off t...I don't think that my answer above is so off track. We see a solid object, not the empty spaces, for obvious evolutionary reasons: we need to avoid big rocks to survive. However, above I was saying, as does Faust, that there is no way that we can see the rock as it really is, if it even makes sense to talk about the rock as it really is. The scientist's view of the rock,s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-57161478514723008032009-10-28T14:07:10.015-05:002009-10-28T14:07:10.015-05:00the space that we're talking about here would ...the space that we're talking about here would be too small for light to pass through, otherwise we would be able to see the object "glow" when we held it up to the light like when we hold paper up to a light. That or its too layered.... Actually that would probably be the better answer. If we cut very thin strips of rock we can actually transmit light through it. <br /><br />So Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-12220219078653414192009-10-28T12:13:18.203-05:002009-10-28T12:13:18.203-05:00I'm interested to seeing what answer will stat...I'm interested to seeing what answer will statisfy you. I think that Dawkin's use of "" around "really" and "opaque" and so forth is interesting. I mean: is it "really" NOT "opaque?" What would that even mean?<br /><br />Our current causal account seems straight forward:<br /><br />What we see is the result of light that reflects off of Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-82796303909348589472009-10-28T11:13:37.727-05:002009-10-28T11:13:37.727-05:00Wayne, I think "that's how our minds do i...Wayne, I think "that's how our minds do it" works as an explanation of some things (like noticing those syllables, noticing objects in pictures, etc), but does it really apply here? I think there has to be more physics to this story. At least, that's my hunch. There's something about that empty space in the pebble, and the nature of particles, and the nature of light...<Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-13942588126659058372009-10-28T11:00:50.853-05:002009-10-28T11:00:50.853-05:00He's giving a representational realist account...He's giving a representational realist account of experience. So to improve:<br />What we experience when we experience the rock, is not actually what reality is, but how our minds represent reality. We know the rock is mostly empty space, just like we know that a dog whistle makes noise when you blow into it, however we experience no empty space when we see it, and we experience no sound Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-7364906640287694662009-10-28T09:59:13.953-05:002009-10-28T09:59:13.953-05:00The question is about the "solid lump of iron...The question is about the "solid lump of iron or rock" (see picture). If it is "almost entirely empty space" why do we see it as solid? That's Dawkins' question. I like the question, but find his answer less than satisfying.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27265618574247414772009-10-28T09:57:55.590-05:002009-10-28T09:57:55.590-05:00This is complicated, because there aren't rea...This is complicated, because there aren't really "electromagnetic forces between atoms" either. That is, even our more exact scientific descriptions are metaphors or are maps of sorts. There isn't a real solid rock, but there aren't particles either.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-78216209129230513362009-10-28T09:52:24.988-05:002009-10-28T09:52:24.988-05:00I'm not sure I understand the question. The ro...I'm not sure I understand the question. The room I am sitting in is "filled with space." Or rather, it appears to the naked eye as though the room is a "space" with furniture and other items in it. I guess I'm not clear what "seeing" and "space" mean in this context. Or is that your question?Faustnoreply@blogger.com