I no longer have the faintest idea of what a table is. Both Bertrand Russell and Max Planck brought this most curious question to my attention, because they did take it very seriously.

They point out that if your senses are disabled, then you can't know anything about a table (so what is a table?). This is truly not a trivial problem, although it seems laughable.

This is where I chime in.

How does one define the edges of a table? Since you can stand back a few feet from a table and still experience it, that must mean the table extends a few feet beyond its physical existence. You can know about a table because of the reflected photons. Thus, the real edges of the table are the photons. If you disable your ability to detect photons then the edge will creep back to where it activates your tactile sense. If you disable your tactile sense and still can't detect photons, then you'll have to smell it, hear it, taste it, burn it, or have someone put it on your back. While you won't feel the table on your back, you'll still be able to detect gravity and thus sense your weight has increased. If you burn the table, then the odor molecules will collect in your nose and the rise in room temperature will become apparent.

Does a table have an objective reality? I have to say that it does, but I'm not sure what it could be. The foremost problem is does the table have a surface? Well, to our tactile sense it sure does. But imagine if your fingers are thinner than neutrons. You might not find a surface. That's why this problem is not trivial.

Sometimes a table is just a table. =p

Our fingers are not thinner than neutrons. So that's not relevant. Any normal everyday item, like a table, found its definition through plain ol' basic human senses. Anything further is merely a distraction for the unbearably bored.

Bertrand Russell was a platonist, but an important logician and mathematician. I'm reading his "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" as we speak. Very interesting stuff, but the jargon is outdated. As is the notion of "objective" and "subjective", at least in my universe of discourse. I also really enjoy his popular stuff; he deserved the Nobel Prize in Litterature! But he's an idealist in the true sense of the word; for example, he regards libertarian socialism as the most _rational_ political system, because it gives everyone equal rights - that is, he uses a way of thought that works really well when it comes to mathematics, logic and physics to reason about the real world, and that "style" persists in everything that I've read by him.

As far as I remember, Russell had an utterly idealistic comment on Berkeleys (subjective) take, that a tree doesn't exists without anyone there to observe it. [Or, exists only in the mind of the observer.] Personally, I think Berkeley has a productive understanding of the world as non-essensialistic, but not more "right" than an objective take. But in the end, whatever we think about the table or the tree, the world (and us) will be exactly the same, and its really, really hard to find a difference between a "subjective" take and an "objective" take. What difference does it make? Other than changing your personal state of mind? (And remember, "subjetive" and "objective" are simply words which might be useful in some situations, but WHY should they represent reality in any way?)

I think that Richard Rorty gives a satisfying answer to the question "what is a table". Long story short, he says that the most practical way of understanding a table is as a word with a practical purpose for us as humans. I like Rorty. More or less, he says that as humans we should be honest towards our state of nature, and not attempt to find anything that is beyond us, including timeless and eternal meaning behind words. The only problem is that his answer to the problems of philosophy seems to be "there isn't a problem," which isn't a satisfying answer in general, and an attitude that might halt progress.

But it's an important question. Just as "what is a number?" is important, and "what is logic?" is important. And "what should I have for dinner", and "who's gonna be my wife."

9 out of 10 of the people I know or have known who have studied philosophy and liked Rorty (and/or similar philosophers) have sooner or later arrived at the simple conclusion that "there isn't a problem". I'm not saying it'll necessarily be that way for you, but I've seen this development so many times that I'd be surprised if it turned out otherwise. Generally, I've noticed that the time it takes for a person to arrive at this conclusion is a pretty accurate gauge of that person's intelligence. The smart people entertain the ideas and play around with them and apply them to different aspects they see in life, but after going through it, they see the "important questions" for the entertaining nonsense they are. The dumb people are the ones that get stuck in the loop of assuming that the questions are "important" and that they must accommodate their thinking to suit the questions, and not the other way around. If you're a reasonably clear-minded individual, you'll sooner or later get to a point where you realize that what's important isn't the "important questions" in themselves, but rather the reasons why we even ask nonsensical questions like "what is a table?" or "do numbers exist?" in the first place.

Why is it a fallacy to think that the answer to the "problems of philosophy" is "there really isn't a problem"? This reminds me of the misguided argument religious people sometimes use that just because people have believed for so long and done crazy things to prove their faith that would prove that the things they believe in actually do exist. But obsessing about made-up things, whether they be Gods and angels or "important questions", doesn't make them real or significant. Newsflash: just because people throughout history have wasted their lives in racking their brains about how many angels can dance on the top of a needle at the same time or whether numbers "really do exist somewhere in some form" it does not follow that those questions aren't nonsensical. They are, and the sooner one realizes that, the better off one's mental health will probably be.

This willingness to seduce oneself into believing in a "question's" relevance just because millions of books have been written about it and just because many people have thought it important reminds me of Nietzsche's aphorism: "Men believe in that which is seen to be strongly believed in". Simplified: prop up some crap as much as you can (the war on terrorism, God, philosophical problems, etc...) and eventually people will believe that its actually worth their time contemplating, "'cause everyone's talking about it". Its easier to just continue heaping worthless books and treatises and questions on the pile of nothing known as "Western philosophy" than just having the balls to admit that it was a misguided clusterf**k in the first place (well, to be fair, not in the "first place", the Ancient Greeks asked some questions that had worth, but it quickly went downhill from there).

The last two questions are undoubtedly important. The others are the questions that weak, self-deluded, and confused people engage in when they can't face or don't want to acknowledge that they have problems solving the last two. Its easier to lose oneself in abstract questions that "seem" important and that - how conveniently - will probably never be solved so one can hide in them for an indefinite time.

Daniel K, I love you and I want to have your babies.

NOW.

On a TABLE

Asking questions is very important, especially if we want to know "why" we ask questions. Because that's what humans will keep doing, with or without a previous history of questions. We want truth, and we can't be satisfied with the "ignorance is bliss" concept. Just keep things in a healthy balance (meaning, concern yourself with the day-to-day but don't shut off all avenues of thought). Also, the more knowledgeable one becomes, the more questions he will have, and realize which are the important ones to ask. Questioning is not for the weak.

Read up on Earnshaw's theorem.
As for fingers thinner than neutrons, that does not make any sense. Neutrinos plow through tables and everything else, but it's not that the table is NOT held together (it certainly is), it's simply that for a neutrino they almost never interact with normal matter.

-avatar!

I definitely agree that its important to realize which questions are important to ask, that's what my post was about. I'm just saying that there are some questions where we can never really hope to derive at a final "truth". Contemplating those questions is fine as long as you understand not to let them demand more from you than they deserve. The problem is, a lot of people let the questions rule them and their lives, when they really should use the questions to rule their own lives.

And here I was thinking you'd never ask!

You are my hero. (I only quoted my favorite parts, which is a lot of them)

A table is just a table, end of discussion, move on with more important matters.  Also this "God" that many people believe in is simply a fictional character like a Sonic or a Mario, nothing more.  I actually have more faith in Sonic and Mario since I've actually "seen" them and know they're real.  They've actually provided me with some sense of joy in my life unlike this God character, who always lead to disappointment when I was a child (you see, as a child I was brainwashed.. err I mean.. I "believed" in God).

And here are some other answers beyond the table issue to make Jodo sleep better - the egg, yes it makes a sound, and the cat is either alive or dead but only a tit would think it's both.

Wow, I've seen a lot of dumb Jodo threads, but this might be the dumbest.

So, what you claim is that clear-minded individuals would prioritate their attention away from philisophy? That might well be right, in general. But clear-minded individuals might prioritate philosophy over cooking a nice dinner, if it advances their career, am I right?

It's not a fallacy, but it's an unproductive approach to a problem - it simply doesn't add anything new to the table. You can always handle a problem with an attide "that isn't a problem", in fact you do that all the time, just think about all the problems you don't ever think about (like "what color would I've liked this computer to have were I a girl born in 1996?") - has to be an infinite amount of those, right? There's no fallacy to it, but it is rude. Rude towards all those intelligent people who have spent time on these and similiar problems. I think it is perfectly all right to say "I won't prioritate that problem," but to claim that the problem isn't there requires significant justification. In an honest debate, at least.

If all you do is to think about whom you want for wife, you'll never get a wife. Those "irrelevant" questions might be worth a lot to you, if you're good at answering them, good at using them to your advantage, and so on. Some goes for other irrelevant questions, like how astrology works, how to maneuver a fork lift, what stereo one should buy and what coffe to buy.

Grassie: I'm not saying that philosophical inquiry is worthless, I've studied the subject myself and didn't find the time I spent on it wasted (it actually enriched my life very much). I'm also definitely not saying that only those pursuits that immediately result in money or material gains are worthwhile. I'm just saying to keep a healthy balance and not obsess too much about questions that lead nowhere. Even though I replied to some things you wrote, I mostly had Jodo in mind. He might not want to listen, but you're still very young (if I recall correctly?), so my advice to you is to engage the questions if they really interest you, but don't get swallowed up by them. Like any other advice you might have gotten, you yourself decide what you're going to do with it (if anything).

Is it rude to suggest that all those intelligent people might have wasted their intelligence on matters that are really trivial and that they could have applied their gifts in more fruitful ways? To avoid being rude, should we just be quiet and watch the intelligent people of today and tomorrow repeat the same mistakes as the intelligent people of yesterday? If a philosophical "problem" hasn't come any nearer to being "solved" than it was 2600 years ago, is it rude to suggest that the "problem" might not even exist...?

Also, I'm not afraid to be "rude". Often in intellectual discourse, you have to be rude to even be able to say something new or get a debate going.

No... just no. I can't agree with you here. When we're talking about highly obscure and abstract metaphysical questions like "what is a table?", I would say that the burden to prove that its actually an important question lies on those claiming we need to acknowledge it.

I agree completely. My main point was simply: don't lose yourself in the questions (which is what I think Jodo is doing).

You know, it's kind of cute when a young child asks these kinds of questions and this is coming from someone that doesn't like children. I tell you, that brat who told me to shut up when I asked him to watch his fingers when I was getting fish out of tank for him the other day... I love how his mother didn't even bat an eyelash at that.

Jodo, have you read a book called "The Holographic Universe", by Michael Talbot? A lot of what is being discussed in this thread reminds me of it.

What is a table?

A miserable pile of wood.

I haven't read that one.

My reasoning is that a table may be something else, if our senses were different. It's also important to understand the real problem. The question 'What is a table?' refers to a table that is not being monitored by any of the human senses. I should have specified that. If possible, imagine not having any of your senses (sight, taste, smell, touch, hearing, heat, gravity). With all of your senses disabled, the table would still exist. There would be no way to know anything about it. Now, imagine getting back one of your senses (touch). But this touch sense is very different (pretend we're now in a movie, where ridiculous things are perfectly acceptable). In this movie, you are given fingers that are thinner than neutrons. Your very thin fingers could potentially stick right through the table without touching any atoms. Matter is not continuous. It has gaps that could be exploited by sufficiently thin probes (fingers in this case).

What fascinates me so much about this question is trying to understand how a table might appear at a default level. This leads to a question that is more important sounding: Does reality have a default level? The default level of reality would be how things appear in the complete absence of any sense. For example, we see what a table looks like in a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As avatar! pointed out, there are things called 'neutrinos' that rarely interact with matter. A neutrino map of a table might turn up one little dot or nothing at all (they only show the core of the Sun, for example). But still, the table persists. It doesn't matter how you look at matter. It is still there.

I'd rather get lost with this stuff than get lost with a woman. I don't need any more debacles in my life.

My happiness levels are much higher if I think about topics that are complete nonsense to others. The moment I try to engage in human affairs - whoosh! Everything goes crazy!

But this one isn't even nonsense. You're pondering a basic noun here. When the answer to your question can be found in any dictionary, I can't help feeling there are better questions to spend your time on.

Monitored by human senses right now or not, a table is what it is.

awesome, dude! I love The Invisibles too!

Since there are so many sentient beings experiencing reality (people, animals, plants, etc.), and since the consciousnesses of these beings are in constant flux (they can be awake, sleeping, depressed, drunk, under the influence of various substances, thoughts, circumstances, etc.), I'd say there is no "default" reality. It always looks different depending on who you are and where you currently stand, there is no "default" view originating from nowhere.

Also, "the default level of reality would be how things appear in the complete absence of any sense"? How could things "appear" in the absence of any sense? Senses are required to even understand that an object is there in the first place.

Life is supposed to be crazy! You might feel like you're happier contemplating nonsense, but what you're really doing is closing off many avenues of essential human experience. Life is a gamble, not a phenomenon to be examined under a microscope or charted with a graph, you might have to take risks.

If you're really interested in comprehending reality, how come you're shutting yourself out from such a large part of it?

I guess I don't have a choice in the matter. Your post couldn't have been more timely. The same woman that rejected me wants me to go drinking and camping with her. I don't know how I can weasel my way out of it. She'll even buy the alcohol, 'cause she wants to see me drink. If that's the way it is, if I am simply a curiosity, then I guess I have to accept it. I suppose I have it easier than other guys, who have to actively search for women. I just act normal and they pester me.

Camping? You should try it and see where it goes (if you don't want to drink, leave the alcohol be). If it turns out to confirm your suspicions, then you've really not lost anything, have you?

The best way to defeat your fears is to face and engage them. Its a cliché that's been bandied around forever, but its true. I've learned (from my own example and from observing others) that when you balk at doing something, its always fruitful to stop and ask yourself what it is in that special circumstance that repels you. Reflecting honestly upon it will teach you a lot about yourself and make it a lot easier to suspend your fears and apprehensions.

Fortune-cookie Daniel out.

a table is probably what i would have in my dining room if it wasnt full of bunny cages...

I am totally agree with your valuable notion.