[MD] Dog Dishes and Direct Experience

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

Hi Matt

You seemed to enjoy Ron's copy and paste job of the old Abbott and
Costello bit. Wow. That must have been a tough one for him to come up
with. What a wit. Anyway, I thought I'd throw in a little original
humor... try and be a little constructive instead of destructive...
too, you offered a thought experiment so I offered a thought
experiment. I realize it's an old device to heap ridicule on others
during a discussion, especially when one person cannot hold up their
end... I expected it from Ron but I hoped for better from you...
regardless...

I see you are still concerned with Don... I am (still) unsure though
why Dave's explanation of the concept of object permanence would
mollify his worries any better than my "what dish?" would... unless
you are saying that objects have the "state or quality of lasting or
remaining unchanged indefinitely." (definition of permanence,
dictionary.com) in which case Don might well be happy and quit his
whining. Still whining Donnie? Have you heard enough? I've had to
listen to that for centuries. (Extra points for knowing the source of
this quasi-quote.)

That is why I used the idea of a perpetual motion machine (clearly an
impossibility) in my little story... something that never changes and
goes on indefinitely. But now you seem to be backtracking... you seem
to be saying that wasn't what you meant by the concept of object
permanence... you throw a monkey wrench into the equation... all
things being equal. But what is Don to think of this?

If I were Don I might have to wonder if ceteris paribus is all that
informative when it comes to my dog dish existing or not when I leave
the room. In fact, if I were Don I might suspect that is where my
dis-ease arises... given the two choices, and all other things being
equal, of checking on my dog dish or not checking on it, I might
become more worried yet, being compelled to check on that dog dish
time and again. All things being equal, I know nothing lasts forever.
I know things get stolen all the time.

(Geez, Matt... I can't get that dish off my mind now... explain to me
once again about the concept of object permanence. What? What do you
mean... it doesn't mean that nothing ever breaks! Are you serious?
What if my dog dish breaks... Fido will starve to death and I will
never know it. Thanks a lot for that... that really sets my mind to
ease. Where is dmb when you need him?)

What we seem to be discussing by introducing ceteris paribus is the
concept of control. Your saying all other things being equal sets up
specific parameters in which the though experiment will function. It
reminds me of the Copenhagen interpretation. I pulled this quote from
Henry Folse's book which Robert Pirsig used as a reference in his SODV
paper:

"So sometimes a particle acts like a particle and other times it acts
like a wave. So which is it? According to Niels Bohr, who worked in
Copenhagen when he presented what is now known as the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory, the particle is what you measure it
to be. When it looks like a particle, it is a particle. When it looks
like a wave, it is a wave. Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe
any properties or even existence to anything that has not been
measured. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is
observed.”

Is the dog dish being measured when it isn't observed? And if it isn't
being measured, all other things being equal, does it exist? But...
you say... the dish has been measured. We can attribute certain
properties to it such as the ability to hold dog food, unless, of
course, an elephant happens by and steps upon it (inadvertently of
course) while no one is observing. It looked like a dog dish but now
it looks like a platter. So which is it? Isn't it meaningless to
ascribe any property to said dish when it isn't being observed, just
as it is meaningless to say a particle is a wave or not? Isn't Don
better off just dumping some food on the floor and saying the hell
with that dog dish?

Anyway, just a few things to chew on during this early Christmas
morning. I am sure I've missed some of your finer points but happy
holidays all the same!

Thank you,

Dan

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> DMB said:
> Soooooooooooo, this notion of object permanence is totally relevant
> to the question about the status of Don's dog dish WHEN DON
> LEAVES THE ROOM, right?
>
> Dan said:
> No! The notion of object permanence is irrelevant when no one is
> around Don's dog dish.
>
> Matt said:
> This is what neither Dave nor I can wrap our heads around.  The
> "notion of object permanence" _is_ the social/intellectual pattern that
> babies learn, and the _lack_ of which would make them grow up to
> be Don, who apparently forgets common sense, and so wonders if
> his dog dish is still there when he leaves the room.  The notion
> _repeats_ common sense, and so _is exactly_ relevant as the
> philosophical account of what presupposition is in place that makes
> us _not worry_ about Don's dog dish when it is unobserved.  After all,
> why would it be relevant if one _was_ around the dish?  One would
> presumably be sensing it, and so not need in place the
> common-sense-pattern that reminds one to not worry when one
> isn't sensing it.
>
> Matt:
> Dan, you replied with a nice story about a perpetual motion machine
> hidden in a mountain, and I take it as a means of explaining how the
> "concept of object permanence" is irrelevant when no one is around
> (or, at least as an explanation of why one shouldn't be worried about
> things one isn't around).  Story-Dan is perfectly confident that his
> hidden-forever machine is still running, and I take this paragraph to
> be the crux of your argument
>
> Dan said:
> People ask me... how do you know that though? If you're never
> around your machine, how do you know it is even running now?
> Maybe it stopped and you don't know... maybe no one knows. Oh no,
> I say... I know it cannot stop because of the concept of object
> permanence, you see. I know it keeps running because when I left
> my machine there in that deep dark cave secreted way back inside
> of a mountain and locked behind doors no one can open that mother
> humper was running like nobody's business. There ain't no way it
> stopped. It's the wonder of the universe... it's a perpetual motion
> machine.
>
> Matt:
> I can't figure out why you take it that the notion I've been calling the
> "concept of object permanence" entails that nothing ever breaks, or
> that nothing ever happens that might impinge on the object in
> question.  (It's not the "concept of mechanical perfection" or "the
> concept of immunity to earthquakes.")  That's the only way I can
> figure this to be a riposte to the concept being a relevant response to
> Don's dog dish.  The concept doesn't underwrite _everything_.  As I
> said much earlier in this discussion (in the other thread) it falls, like
> many other things in life, under the ceteris paribus clause: "all things
> being equal."  (Pirsig importantly uses this clause in Ch. 13 of Lila to
> define DQ's moral relationship to static patterns--so remember, any
> pushing we do on the conceptual abilities of the ceteris paribus
> clause has very important implications for Pirsig's philosophy.)
>
> - So first: the concept doesn't refer to the permanent functioning of
> machines.  (Why would it?)
> - But two: it would refer to the perpetual motion machine still being
> in the cave, but only on the condition that nothing happened to it that
> would make that not the case (like an earthquake, or somebody
> finding it, or it sprouting legs and a drillbit and attaching its power
> production to those units).  And this because it is the _right kind of
> object_ (first and foremost: a nonbiological, inorganic pattern).
> - So three: this is what makes the concept of object permanence
> relevant to Don.  There is no _commonsensical_ cause of Don's
> sudden anxiety over the food dish.  He didn't hear glass breaking in
> the kitchen (as I once put it earlier), or plastic scraping against the
> floor (denoting, possibly, that Fido is nosing the empty dish around),
> or gun fire (denoting who knows what).  "All other things being
> equal," says Chris to Don, "Fido's dog food dish should still be there
> because objects like dog dishes don't just get up and leave."  The
> word "because" denotes a reason being offered and the phrase
> "objects like dog dishes don't just get up and leave" denotes the
> concept of object permanence.
>
> There are further stages of the thought-experiment that yield
> philosophical accounting (the next being to wonder what happens if
> Don doesn't believe Chris).  However, this is the first one, which we
> haven't been able to see eye to eye on yet.  What I can't tell yet, Dan,
> is precisely how you are objecting to the relevance of the concept of
> object permanence.  Yes, perhaps the formulation of "the concept of
> object permanence" is an obscurantist drag on the conversation,
> causing a lot of confusion (and maybe, too, because I refuse to limit
> myself to just how it is used in developmental psychology as Dave
> thinks we should).  But there's no reason we can't regiment the
> senses of words and concepts in order to understand what we
> precisely think about isolated issues.  What I'm partly confused about
> is whether or not we are even talking about the same issue.
>
> I don't need you to _agree_ that the "concept of object permanence"
> is relevant to Don's dog dish.  But to responsibly say "I understand
> you," I do need to understand the context and purport of disagreeing,
> what makes sense of disagreeing with what is otherwise an obvious
> explanation.  This is the same procedure one makes in figuring out
> the philosophical purport of a Zen koan: what is the point, here, in
> flouting common sense?  How should my understanding be
> expanded?  I'll repeat the frame I put on this question from the last
> time:
>
> Dan said:
> It is presupposed that Don's dog dish continues to exist... just like
> trees falling in forests with no one around are presupposed. Does
> Don's dog dish vanish when no one is around? No! Does Don's dog
> dish exist when no one is around? No! All a person can say is: what
> dog dish?
>
> Matt said:
> I still don't understand this move on your part, Dan.  It _is_, we all
> agree, presupposed--as part of the social/intellectual pattern that
> babies learn--that the dog dish is still in the kitchen.  So when Don
> worries about it, what is the answer "what dog dish?" supposed to
> accomplish?
>
> It doesn't sound like you're simply reminding him of the
> presuppositional status of our beliefs about reality.  It sounds like your
> saying something metaphysical that neither I nor Dave can find a use
> for, and I would want to add Pirsig, too.  It sounds like you're saying
> that the proper response, at all times, when a person wonders about
> something that is beyond their first-personal observation, the correct
> answer should be, "mu--that's a bad question."  When one isn't
> observing an object, the object--like the computer analogy in
> ZMM--cannot be said to exist or not-exist.  But the world wouldn't be
> able to function if that was the case.  That means your question is
> _philosophical_ as opposed to _commonsensical_.  However, what is
> this philosophical purpose?  I read it earlier as the purpose of
> reminding us about the presuppositional status of our beliefs about
> reality.  But, at that time, it seemed like you pushed back against
> reading you as only doing that.  What else are you doing?  Are you
> saying that, philosophically, nothing can be said to exist or not exist
> outside our immediate observation?  "What reality?"
>
> Matt
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html