is a key still a key, if theres nothing to unlock?

[SOLDIER #819]

The phone became a phone at the instant of its creation because of how it was created and what it was intended for. It is the intended function that defines an object, not what it's actually being used for. The intention of the creator at the instant of creation never varies, the current situation of the object changes nothing.

Because currently there is absolutely 0 reason to believe anything else. Time is linear, we have passed a point in the line, we can no longer go back to it. that point is not influenced by any after it. The intent doesn't need to be 'carved' anywhere. It's simply a part of the definition of a term used to reffer to an object. This topic really isn't all that deep. It's a simple question of what qualities earn an object the term we use for it.

Those are still assumptions as to how the universe truly works, which I doubt scientists can only really say so much about. We don't need to worry about that though. That wasn't my intention, nor was it to have you quote the dictionary to explain something both of us know very well.

I'm not trying to to take this deeper than I should, really, but fundamental differences in belief usually are. Let me rephrase the question: "Why is it that the thoughts/intentions of the creator have precedence over a user of the object, or anyone else, in determining what an object is?"

I personally don't see why one thought is more important than another in determining an object's value. Art is very much like that. Everyone sees something different, and one opinion on the matter isn't any more or less true than the other. That the creator of the object somehow determines this is, I think, an oversimplification of the issue.

Like, what if the creator of an object does so by accident? A caveman makes a wooden spear, but by grinding it down sets the stick aflame. He throws it down, scared, and runs off. Another caveman picks it up and uses it as a torch. So then, is the item a failed spear or a successful torch? I'd say it's more of a torch, but by your logic it's still a spear since its creator's intention takes precedence. Yet, by definition (I don't think you need me to C&P it ), it's not a spear. So...

What if an artist begins to paint a picture of his aunt, and halfway through he gets a little lazy. When he finishes it he looks at it and says, "Ah, it's my mother." And yeah, it's much closer to his mother than to his aunt. He had never consciously thought of painting his mother, and there is no proof that he had "subconsciously" thought of it. So his original intent is at odds with what he views it as now. Which is it? It could swing either way in this case.

That same artist gets drunk one night as he paints and can't remember wtf he was thinking when he lifted the brush. He look at it and says it's a cat. His friend says it's a duck. Who's more right? The person who was drunk may have had an intention, or maybe had none. Or maybe he changed his mind on whim some 20 times throughout the painting process. I'd say it's whatever people want it to be. Intention would have zero to do with its identity.

What if two people are working on the same object, but neither tells the other their intention of what they are trying to make. When they finish, they both were successful in creating what they had wanted. But they wanted to create different things. One guy wanted a small knife, the other wanted a key. So who's intention gets precedence? Who gets more time with their baby? Or is it both things? But if it's both, it suggests that the object's identity goes beyond that of either creator.

They get angry and set it aside. Friend comes in right then and uses it as a letter opener. At this point the creators don't give a **** what it is, so they mutually agree to call it something else entirely. Does this decision supersede their original intent? Personally, I think it can be anything anyone wants it to be.

--

We're also looking at this from different POVs, I think, which makes it harder to debate. Going by your linear time thing, you're viewing this problem as someone outside looking in, like a diorama. You assume that you can see every point from every angle at any time and are therefore able to judge what the creator's intention was at the time he created the creation.

But there hasn't been in a time in my experience where I can say I've experienced being omniscient in any matter. Our experience is limited to what we are able to perceive. Senses and second-hand information are how we come to conclusions. So to me, the "truth" behind the identity of some creation, based on intent, can't even be shown to exist.

Thus far all you have offered is assumptions and suppositions, and circumstances to see how far I'd go with my ideas. I've gone the distance with logic, if you wish to continue your own line of reasoning, I'd recommend attempting the same method.

Let's be a little more clear here: you've gone the distance with the logic that follows from your own assumptions. So effectively, like me, you haven't offered anything other than your own opinion. Which is the norm for most philosophical debates.

Ah, but therein lies the beauty of objective, non circumstantial thoughts, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I like the idea of being an antenna holder if it's what I am. Objectivity doesn't bend to circumstance or personal feelings. The Truth doesn't give an aardvark's anus whether or not we like it.

Assumptions qualify as circumstances under which your logic/thoughts operate. These are things that you went ahead and decided to be true. I never agreed to them personally. Which, again, is why we aren't going to agree on the conclusion. Even if you were objective in your analysis using a given set of rules, you yourself handpicked and selected those rules because they sync up with you the most. I don't think you can prove those outright, just like I can't prove mine.

Just throwing out there, that was Order's post, not mine, you misquoted lol. On topic, there is nothing there that sounds like he ever dismissed her views. He moved immediately into applying logic and critical thinking to a solution, sounds like she just didn't care to listen to that because she was too busy marveling at the complexity of the question to want to have it ruined by a simple answer.

Oops. But if it's all the same, I'll just disregard what you were saying. I mean, you just did it with mine... Haha.