I think the concept of rocks disappears, as well as the concept of numbers. Or in more precise terms: conceptualization stops. That is, if we assume we must conceptualize in order to have concepts in the first place.
Well, clearly
we must conceptualize in order to have concepts. The question I am asking is: do concepts exist independent of beings conceptualizing them? IOW, I am NOT making the assumption that concepts, such as numbers, exist only when beings like us are thinking of them.
At least in the quote provided, you seem to have equated “the rock” with “the concept of numbers”. I don’t see how they are equal categories. Could you clarify how they are equal?
Good question!
I wouldn't term them equal categories, but I do think there is a good argument to be made for presuming that some concepts, such as numbers, exist independently of ourselves observing them just as we presume rocks exists independently of ourselves observing them. I clarified this argument in post 2051.
Beth said:
The way we establish whether something exists independently of ourselves is through the consistency of observations by different human beings. That is, if an object was observed to have the same properties regardless of who observed it, then it can be assumed that that object has an existance independent of those humans who examined it. When the descriptions differ significantly from one person to another, such as for gods and ghosts, we don't feel as confident because the disparate observations alter what conclusions can drawn from them.
In general, the more people that independently observe something and the more those observations agree regarding the properties of that thing, the greater the confidence we have that the object exists separately from ourselves. Using that same criteria, it's reasonable to conclude numbers, such as pi, have an existance independent of the humans who examine them.
There is also a good argument that numbers and indeed, all of mathematics, are simply products of our brains the same way that words and the stories we create with them are. I am agnostic about these two points of view and find discussions such as this helpful in clarifying my thoughts on the matter.
So let me be clear, I am not claiming that the concept of numbers has an existance independent of ourselves, only that it seems as if they do. If that appearance is an accurate reflection of reality, then it seems to me that materialism must be false as it is not capable of explaining the existance of non-physical things independent of the physical beings thinking about them. If the independent existance of numbers is considered an illusion rather than reality, then materialism can explain what we observe.
It is a direct result of materialistic monism that all non-tangible things are illusions, better described as emergent properties of certain arrangements of physical matter that is, IMO, the heart of the difference between materialism versus idealism or dualism. Do rainbows exist when no one is there to see them?
