Where does reality reside ?

[Thunderbird]

Yes. The logic works perfectly well. Water is a constituent ingredient in mud, but mud is NOT an ingredient in water. Found any mud in your tapwater recently?

 

I think a clearer analogy would be a piston.

 

A piston is clearly a part of a car, but a car is NOT a part of a piston.

 

Or a whale. A whale lives in the sea, but the sea does not live in the whale.

 

Or... uh... well, yeah. Plenty analogies afoot...

Here's another...

'Standing on a whale fishing for minnows.' We are standing on a whale. The ground of being is the ground of our being." --Joseph Campbell

 

[Thunderbird]

That's right. And so the question remains:

 

Does a thing require an observer to continue to be a thing?

 

The evidence says NO.

 

Things can be without anyone there to see.

Contexual Duality... means no... it cannot.

[Thunderbird]

That's right. And so the question remains:

 

Does a thing require an observer to continue to be a thing?

 

The evidence says NO.

 

Things can be without anyone there to see.

 

Your chasing your tail here.

[REASON]

Your chasing your tail here.

 

No, you just think I am. ;)

[Thunderbird]

No, you just think I am. ;)

 

What "evidence" are you reffering to.....?

[REASON]

What "evidence" are you reffering to.....?

 

How about the fact that you exist even though I haven't observed you. Even if I had never joined Hypo and never read a single post of yours, you would exist in reality none the less.

 

Granted you may not exist in my reality, but not existing in my reality doesn't remove you from universal reality.

 

As I have said in this thread, and as Modest has aptly shown diagramatically, there is an obvious distinction between the reality of the natural universe, and someone's mental perception of it.

[modest]

Can't both be a part of reality? - our observation of the thing and the thing itself? Without getting into exactly what the observation is and what the thing is we can at least say they are both part of reality.

Either the brain is in reality or

reality is in the brain.

 

They are mutually exclusive - they both can't be right.

Reality is a contexual duality. A thing... and an observer of a thing.

 

I don’t know about a contextual duality but they are certainly related in a big way. I think the problem going around is a failure to distinguish between:

1. reality and
   
2. perception, interpretation, or observation of reality.
   

HydrogenBond has (apparently) said only number 2 exists. You are trying to say number 2 is the cause of number 1.

 

Both ideas are wrong and it stems from giving human perception privilege it just shouldn’t have. The image of the tree isn’t the tree. As I state above, they are both part of reality - but they are different - related but different as I depicted earlier. Isn’t this common sense? I’m surprised so many people are objecting. It's like holding a picture of an apple in one hand and the apple in the other hand and saying "which one is real?" or "if the apple is in the picture then how can it be in my hand?" The answer seems like common sense.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

How about the fact that you exist even though I haven't observed you. Even if I had never joined Hypo and never read a single post of yours, you would exist in reality none the less.

 

Granted you may not exist in my reality, but not existing in my reality doesn't remove you from universal reality.

Again I will say... I am not reffering to that wich is out of sight from an observer, but reality does not exsist without an observer. Chasing your tail....

As I have said in this thread, and as Modest has aptly shown diagramatically, there is an obvious distinction between the reality of the natural universe, and someone's mental perception of it.

 

Chasing your tail..... Observer and the observered can only exist together... not independently. Try reading one of my previous post on this it will avoid confusion and repetition.

[Thunderbird]

I don’t know about a contextual duality but they are certainly related in a big way. I think the problem going around is a failure to distinguish between:

1. reality and
   
2. perception, interpretation, or observation of reality.
   

HydrogenBond has (apparently) said only number 2 exists. You are trying to say number 2 is the cause of number 1.

 

Both ideas are wrong and it stems from giving human perception privilege it just shouldn’t have. The image of the tree isn’t the tree. As I state above, they are both part of reality - but they are different - related but different as I depicted earlier. Isn’t this common sense? I’m surprised so many people are objecting. It's like holding a picture of an apple in one hand and the apple in the other hand and saying "which one is real?" or "if the apple is in the picture then how can it be in my hand?" The answer seems like common sense.

 

-modest

Contextual duality means the tree is only a probability in space in time and can only manifest as a thing from the perspective of an observer that has a coordinate in time in space.

 

 

A particle has no independent existence without a context, it is just points that connect other points when these point are observed, they are nothing but context of connections, without any thing that can be called a real thing, except on the level we have evolved within.

 

As we evolved we have taken this undifferentiated agglomeration that surrounds us and created our personal version of the universe. way we make art, write stories.

 

If we keep evolving our future self's may someday laugh at us in our beliefs in what we insisted was real and what was imagined.

[REASON]

Again I will say... I am not reffering to that wich is out of sight from an observer, but reality does not exsist without an observer. Chasing your tail....

 

I'm affraid it is you that is chasing your tail, T-bird. That which is out of sight is that without an observer, and it can exist just the same.

 

Material exists in this universe. We, as conscious beings, are constructed of it. Our physical construct of materials from this universe over time has brought about our consciousness, giving us the ability to observe, categorize, reference, and memorize the pre-existing materials and their relationships from which we are made.

 

Without the physical construct of life, and particularly human life, there is no known method of achieving consciousness. Consciousness is required in order to observe, categorize, and essentially define the universe. Scientists have developed solid theories supported by evidence that describe the approximate age of the universe based on a time reference that we have defined and can somewhat relate to, and we understand that life on this planet is not nearly as old as the universe.

 

This simply means that this materialistic universe existed for a significantly long time prior to any conscious observer. And in fact, is therefore responsible for the development of the consious observer, supported by the fact that we are made of the same universal materials. We, as conscious beings able to perceive reality, are a product of this material universe.

 

DUH! These are not shocking revelations I'm making here!

 

Science is all about the study and understanding of this material universe for which we have come to understand not only exists as referenced by our conscious minds, but has existed prior to any known conscious observer. To suggest that the reality of existance is nothing more than a mental construct is simply conjecture. In science, that which is conjecture is not shown to be real.

 

I'm affraid your perception of reality is all in your head, T-bird. :esmoking:

 

 

Chasing your tail..... Observer and the observered can only exist together... not independently. Try reading one of my previous post on this it will avoid confusion and repetition.

 

I have read all of your posts, and therefore ideas, in this thread. In fact, I have read every single post in this thread. I know you didn't observe me doing it, so I guess you'll just have to speculate on whether I'm telling you the truth. Maybe my need to repeat myself has more to do with the fact that I have been reading your posts.

 

 

I agree with modest that it is important that we are in agreement as to the definition of "reality" as we go forth in this discussion as I don't feel that we have been talking about the same things.

[nutronjon]

Can't both be a part of reality? - our observation of the thing and the thing itself? Without getting into exactly what the observation is and what the thing is we can at least say they are both part of reality.

 

-modest

 

I was thinking the appearence of solid objects is delusion, because all is made of particles and held together by forces we do not see. Just an argument for the sake of argument. :esmoking: ;)

[Buffy]

Again I will say... I am not reffering to that wich is out of sight from an observer, but reality does not exsist without an observer. ..... Observer and the observered can only exist together... not independently. Try reading one of my previous post on this it will avoid confusion and repetition.

It's become quite obvious that "reality does not exist without an observer" is definitional for you.

 

As such, its unclear how any of this discussion clarifies anything about our existence or our perceptions of it, or even what exists and what doesn't.

 

"So?"

 

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use, :esmoking:

Buffy

[modest]

Chasing your tail..... Observer and the observered can only exist together... not independently. Try reading one of my previous post on this it will avoid confusion and repetition.

 

It is kinda funny from a purely philosophical point of view that the method you continually scold here is no different from what you do.

 

When people give the property of real to unobserved objects you tell them to remove the observer and stop chasing their tail…

 

Yet you insist on giving the property of unreal to unobserved objects. This fails to pass your own method of reasoning. Inferring a lack of existence is rationally no different from inferring existence from the perspective of the observer. You could not make half the statements you’ve made in this thread were you to follow your own advice and remove the observer.

 

But, as we have shown, your intention is not to have a consistent method but just to create a paradox which can’t be disproved. Well, 2 + 2 = 5 can’t be disproved without an observer either, so there is nothing too interesting about your claim or your cause. You might as well make the claim that 2 + 2 = 5 in a universe void of observation and dare people to prove you wrong. Do you follow? Your problem is claiming 5 is the right answer rather than claiming “2 + 2 is unanswerable in such a situation” which would be the more typical empiricist’s claim.

 

-modest

[jedaisoul]

Science is all about the study and understanding of this material universe for which we have come to understand not only exists as referenced by our conscious minds, but has existed prior to any known conscious observer. To suggest that the reality of existance is nothing more than a mental construct is simply conjecture.

I do not agree with Tbird, but he/she hs a point. It is an axiom of science that the universe exists separate from our perception of it. Being an axiom, it cannot be proved scientifically. Any "proof" is simply circular logic. I.e. You "prove" it is so because you have assumed it to be so in the first place.

 

So the existence of the universe outside our perception of it is just as much a conjecture as the view expressed by Tbird.

 

I agree with modest that it is important that we are in agreement as to the definition of "reality" as we go forth in this discussion as I don't feel that we have been talking about the same things.

In science there is such an agreement, but not in philosophy. Tbird is putting forward one view, you put forward another. Tbird cannot prove that the universe does not exist outside our perception of it, and you cannot prove that it does.

 

The only argument that I have found that has any philosophic strength is that, if you deny the existence of the universe outside our perception of it, then each person's perception is equally valid. So the "reality" of a person who, for psyciatric or medical reasons, is delusional is just as valid as anyone elses' "reality". Also, objectivity loses its meaning, as the occurrence of different people experiencing the same (or similar) realities is purely coincidental. There is no causal relationship as to why people should see the same reality.

 

The trouble is, that convinces me that the universe exists outside my perception of it, but it does not prove it to be so. The whole argument can be countered by the fact that I cannot prove that anything, or anyone, apart from myself actually exists. The whole universe, including you, could simply be a figment of my imagination. I cannot prove it to be othewise. The fact that everyday I wake up to the same universe does not prove that it actually exists, nor that the same will happen tomorrow. It could just be a dream. I don't think it is, but I can never prove that.

 

So, really, discussing this is a waste of time. You, and I, chose to believe the scientific (and "common sense") view. Tbird does not. End of story.

[Thunderbird]

So, really, discussing this is a waste of time. You, and I, chose to believe the scientific (and "common sense") view. Tbird does not. End of story.

When it comes to Mind and Matter I do not "chose" to believe, or just go with a consensus, on a this web site, This is the differences, I go where the science takes me.

 

 

 

 

http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344&q=jaw+droping+richard+dawkins&ei=qQgfSI6MJIjkqgO--cC0AQ&hl=en http://http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344&q=jaw+droping+richard+dawkins&ei=qQgfSI6MJIjkqgO--cC0AQ&hl=en

[Thunderbird]

It's become quite obvious that "reality does not exist without an observer" is definitional for you.

 

Buffy

 

http://http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

 

....And scientist who study such things....

 

Richard Dawkins and other scientist may have a harder time convincing the reductionist that our “reality” is just a possible outcome of an infinitude of possible realities., than convincing creationist that their paradigms are also not realistic and or outdated.

 

You clearly aren’t following scientific progress of Quantum superposition, and how it relates to conciseness and our perceived reality.

 

If you’re going to comment on this sort of thing,, you’d better at least be informed.

 

 

Keep up, or you may find yourself in a “Majority of the deluded“.

 

 

 

 

 

Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, considered as conceivable descriptions of nature, are structurally very different. According to classical mechanics, the world is to be conceived of as a simple aggregate of logically independent local entities, each of which interacts only with its very close neighbors. By virtue of these interactions large objects and systems can be formed, and we can identify various 'functional entities' such as pistons and drive shafts, and vortices and waves. But the precepts of classical physics tell us that whereas these functional units can be identified by us, and can be helpful in our attempts to comprehend the behaviour of systems, these units do not thereby acquire any special or added ontological character: they continue to be simple aggregates of local entities. No extra quality of beingness is appended to them by virtue of the fact that they have some special functional quality in some context, or by virtue of the fact that they define a spacetime region in which certain quantities such as 'energy density' are greater than in surrounding regions. All such 'functional entities' are, according to the principles of classical physics, to be regarded as simply consequences of particular configurations of the local entities: their functional properties are just 'consequences' of the local dynamics; functional properties do not generate, or cause to come into existence, any extra quality or kind of beingness not inherent in the concept of a simple aggregate of logically independent local entities. There is no extra quality of 'beingness as a whole', or 'coming into beingness as a whole' within the framework of classical physics. There is, therefore, no place within the conceptual framework provided by classical physics for the idea that certain patterns of neuronal activity that cover large parts of the brain, and that have important functional properties, have any special or added quality of beingness that goes beyond their beingness as a simple aggregate of local entities. Yet an experienced thought is experienced as a whole thing. From the point of view of classical physics this requires either some 'knower' that is not part of what is described within classical physics, but that can 'know' as one thing that which is represented within classical physics as a simple aggregation of simple local entities; or it requires some addition to the theory that would confer upon certain functional entities some new quality not specified or represented within classical mechanics. This new quality would be a quality whereby an aggregate of simple independent local entities that acts as a whole (functional) entity, by virtue of the various local interactions described in the theory, becomes a whole (experiential) entity. There is nothing within classical physics that provides for two such levels or qualities of existence or beingness, one pertaining to persisting local entities that evolve according to local mathematical laws, and one pertaining to sudden comings-into-beingness, at a different level or quality of existence, of entities that are bonded wholes whose components are the local entities of the lower-level reality. Yet this is exactly what is provided by quantum mechanics, which thereby provides a logical framework that is perfectly suited to describe the two intertwined aspects of the mind/brain system.

[modest]

 

....And scientist who study such things....

 

Richard Dawkins and other scientist may have a harder time convincing the reductionist that our “reality” is just a possible outcome of an infinitude of possible realities., than convincing creationist that their paradigms are also not realistic and or outdated.

 

You clearly aren’t following scientific progress of Quantum superposition, and how it relates to conciseness and our perceived reality.

 

If you’re going to comment on this sort of thing,, you’d better at least be informed.

 

 

Keep up, or you may find yourself in a “Majority of the deluded“.

 

Speaking of keeping up - It is utterly amazing to me that it took you this long (post 135) to get to quantum mechanics. The litany of retorts to previous posts available in QM unused by you could fill this thread twice over. I was expecting as much at each reply. By now we should be deep into discussing current experiments of collapsing probability waves and quantum duality. :confused:

 

-modest