Notices
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By KALSTER

Thread: Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Properties

  1. #1 Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Properties 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    83
    This subject should have its own thread rather than remaining in the “Classical Question” thread.
    KALSTER (from that thread):
    Your insistence on the concept of "intrinsic properties" is a direct denial that each point experiences a different universe.
    No. I do not deny that each point experiences a different “point of view” of the the universe. I deny that that a multitude of such points of view creates a multitude of “universes,” as I said in my last (unanswered) post in the above thread.
    From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP); (my bold and (...):

    Stephen Yablo provides perhaps the most succinct version (of "intrinsic"): “You know what an intrinsic property is: it's a property that a thing has (or lacks) regardless of what may be going on outside of itself."
    David Lewis:
    A thing has its intrinsic properties in virtue of the way that thing itself, and nothing else, is.
    ...The intrinsic properties of something depend only on that thing; whereas the extrinsic properties of something may depend, wholly or partly, on something else.
    Wiki on the same subject:
    An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of itself, independently of other things, including its context. An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things. For example, mass is an intrinsic property of any physical object, whereas weight is an extrinsic property that varies depending on the strength of the gravitational field in which the respective object is placed. As such, the question of intrinsicality and extrinsicality in empirically observable objects is a significant field of study in ontology, the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being.
    Lewis,( SEP):
    Lewis has in several places (1983a, 1986a, 1988) insisted that shape properties are intrinsic, but one could hold that an object's shape depends on the curvature of the space in which it is embedded...
    Yes, one “could hold” that, but that would require an ontology of the properties of space, i.e., whether or not it is a malleable medium/entity or simply the 3-D volume, on whatever scale, which contains entities with curved shapes and trajectories. (That would really “muddy the waters” of this topic.)

    Finally, just a “bump” to get you, KALSTER, to answer my questions in the above thread:
    “One cognition is that the world exists independent of observational points of view (different frames of reference.) Another is that there are as many different "universes" as there are points from which to observe it.
    Do you feel any "discomfort" in trying to hold both conflicting cognitions at once?
    I am sure that you don't think “a rope” or “a tree trunk” correctly describes an elephant as it is, the whole animal, just because “for one point of view (feel)” it feels like a rope, etc.? Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you think an elephant has an intrinsic shape or does it’s shape depend on how it feels from various points of view (feel)?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Did you seriously just quote a bunch of sources on what Intrinsic means and in fact create yet another thread about it? I already told you I know what it means. In fact, we all understand perfectly what you have been trying to say from the very beginning. IT IS NOT COMPLICATED. Your problem is a common one among those who don't get the basic concepts of relativity, but really, the most simple basics is not that difficult to understand. That is why we have been questioning your giant IQ. You may have that IQ, but you certainly seem incapable of understanding one simple thing.

    I don't mind telling you that I am tired of this back and forth. I have NO INTEREST in answering your questions any more. Your first thread was closed and so was your second and despite what you might think, for good reason. And since you seem incapable of talking about anything but this little deficiency in your logic, I am going to close this thread and further, I am going to ban you. I am letting that messed up PM you sent me after the first lock inform this decision as well.

    You can go from here thinking about how unfair, closed-minded, naive and "tyrannical" I am being and that's fine by me. Keep telling yourself that. Nothing will change your mind about that, but I don't care really. Just don't ever come back here.


    Howard Roark likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Similar Threads

  1. Properties of existence ?
    By icewendigo in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 1st, 2012, 10:17 PM
  2. Magnetic properties
    By Cold Fusion in forum Physics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 18th, 2008, 11:41 PM
  3. Properties of liquids?
    By sciency in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 05:02 PM
  4. properties of fluids
    By sciency in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2007, 06:00 AM
  5. What material has these PROPERTIES? <------------------
    By jagoman in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 12:27 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •