Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Objective Consciousness Vs Subjective Universe


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:43 PM

"Apparently there's a nocebo effect as well. People who have been wrongly diagnosed with a condition have ended up developing that condition, far too often for chance. Kind of makes a mockery of objective testing when belief can overrule biology. :) More evidence that the universe is created by consciousness rather than the other way round."

 

Bullshit. :)

Nope, not bullshit at all, and very easily demonstrated.

 

We observe the universe through our five senses and only though them are we able to assign any traits to our surroundings. If there were no consciousness in the universe then it wouldn't look, sound, feel, taste or smell like anything. Now think about what the universe without those would be, nothing. You may fall into the trap of thinking something along the lines of 'the sun would still shine'. Nope. The sun wouldn't shine. 'The Earth would still spin.' How? In what possible sense could an unobserved Earth do anything?

 

What we think of as the universe is merely our own personal model created from our own perception of it. Without that subjective perception the model ceases to exist. Think about that, the only possible way of defining the universe ceases to exist. Now it can only be thought of as mathematical relationships and nothing more. But these relationships are no more significant than mathematical relationships that describe something that doesn't exist at the moment. There's plenty of maths that doesn't describe any real physics and that's all that would be left without consciousness.

 

Try to imagine a universe that doesn't in any way impact our senses. How would we know it exists? We couldn't because it would have no measurable effect. How do we define 'real'? Something that has a measurable effect. The tree falling in the forest is just the beginning. No it really can't possibly make a sound without someone there to here it. The universe can't possibly exist in any real sense without being perceived.

 

If you still think the universe can exist without consciousness then please explain your definition of an existence that has no measurable effect on anything. This idea has a name but I can't remember it. It's interesting to think about but not really useful scientifically because it doesn't change anything but I think it's very important to realise that the consciousness is primary and the material world is secondary. Most people think of it backwards with the universe as the cause and consciousness as the effect.

 

I don't think I'm explaining it very well, I've done it better before but hopefully I've explained it well enough.



#2 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:57 PM


To create this Universe requires us to know everything about this Universe . We don't .

#3 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:11 PM

No you're really not getting it. We don;t have to know a thing about it, the universe existed in the minds of dumb dinosaurs before we came along. It existed in the form of whatever they perceived it to be,

 

To be aware of anything requires that it is in some way perceived by our senses. If it isn't perceived then it has no measurable effect and if it has no measurable effect then it's no more real than the six toed invisible silent non-odored tasteless banana worshiping kangaroos living on Titan that for some reason can't be felt.



#4 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:28 PM

No you're really not getting it. We don;t have to know a thing about it, the universe existed in the minds of dumb dinosaurs before we came along. It existed in the form of whatever they perceived it to be,

To be aware of anything requires that it is in some way perceived by our senses. If it isn't perceived then it has no measurable effect and if it has no measurable effect then it's no more real than the six toed invisible silent non-odored tasteless banana worshiping kangaroos living on Titan that for some reason can't be felt.

Disagree

To create a Universe means that you must know everything about what created the said Universe .

The elements etc . The dynamics , macro and micro . And sub-micro .

Further , beyond consciousness or any living thing ; is the fact that without a physical Universe to start with , there is otherwise no place for life to set foot upon and therefore have the ability to , evolve , in the first place .

Objectively

The physical Universe came first , life second .

Edited by current, 21 March 2017 - 07:36 PM.


#5 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:41 PM

You're still not getting it.

 

The universe only exists in our minds. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that it exists outside of our (consciousness's) perceptions because there's simply no way to define it in that context.

 

The universe as we think of it is our model of reality based purely on what we perceive it to be. When you talk about the universe before the rise of consciousness you're talking about it before that model existed. We can extrapolate backwards to work out how we would have perceived it had we been around but we weren't around. Back then it had no form because it needs consciousness to give it a form.

 

If you're imagining the universe back then you must be thinking of it in terms of what it looked, sounded, felt, tasted and smelled like because there's no there's possible way of defining it, other than as a purely mathematical entity, It didn't look, sound, feel, taste or smell like anything back then because there was no consciousness ti assign those traits to it,


Edited by A-wal, 21 March 2017 - 07:41 PM.


#6 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:06 PM

You're still not getting it.

The universe only exists in our minds. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that it exists outside of our (consciousness's) perceptions because there's simply no way to define it in that context.

The universe as we think of it is our model of reality based purely on what we perceive it to be. When you talk about the universe before the rise of consciousness you're talking about it before that model existed. We can extrapolate backwards to work out how we would have perceived it had we been around but we weren't around. Back then it had no form because it needs consciousness to give it a form.

If you're imagining the universe back then you must be thinking of it in terms of what it looked, sounded, felt, tasted and smelled like because there's no there's possible way of defining it, other than as a purely mathematical entity, It didn't look, sound, feel, taste or smell like anything back then because there was no consciousness ti assign those traits to it,

Really

How could form come from no understanding of what form is ?

Mathematics has nothing to do with physical form , your thinking in terms of Plato , perfect forms . Imagination .

Mathematical forms can not become before the physical forms . Because without physical forms mathematics would never know forms , in the first place .

All Plato's forms are based on physical forms .

Edited by current, 21 March 2017 - 08:08 PM.


#7 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:16 PM

Really

Yes!

 

How could form come from no understanding of what form is ?

Form comes from perception, not understanding. The universe has form in the minds of animals that have no understanding of it.

 

Mathematics has nothing to do with physical form , your thinking in terms of Plato , perfect forms . Imagination .

Mathematics governs physical relationships. Mathematics is the only form that the universe without consciousness could take.

 

Mathematical forms can not become before the physical forms . Because without physical forms mathematics would never know forms , in the first place .

Of course mathematical forms can come before physical forms. There's plenty of valid mathematics that doesn't describe any real physics.

 

All Plato's forms are based on physical forms .

Relevance?



#8 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:44 PM


current, on 21 Mar 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:
Mathematics has nothing to do with physical form , your thinking in terms of Plato , perfect forms . Imagination .



Mathematics governs physical relationships. Mathematics is the only form that the universe without consciousness could take.


Wrong , mathematics is the consequence of physical dynamics between things .

Mathematics measures the dynamics between things , mathematics does not cause dynamics between things .

Mathematics only has form , concept , because physical things exist .

Imagine mathematics in an a space where no physical objects exist , on what would mathematics base its concept of form ?

It couldn't , there is no form on which mathematics could base its self on .

#9 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 06:56 PM

Wrong , mathematics is the consequence of physical dynamics between things .

Mathematics measures the dynamics between things , mathematics does not cause dynamics between things .

Mathematics only has form , concept , because physical things exist .

Imagine mathematics in an a space where no physical objects exist , on what would mathematics base its concept of form ?

It couldn't , there is no form on which mathematics could base its self on .

No, mathematics exists independently of physical processes. As I said, there's plenty of valid mathematics that doesn't describe any real physics. I would have thought this was obvious. Maths is just values and what happens when you do stuff to them, it doesn't have to represent anything real.

 

I think you're making it much harder than it actually is. It's very simple, what we think of as the universe is just the model that our mind creates for us based on our senses. Take consciousness away and that model disappears, so what's left?



#10 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 957 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 03:57 PM

 

 

I think you're making it much harder than it actually is. It's very simple, what we think of as the universe is just the model that our mind creates for us based on our senses. Take consciousness away and that model disappears, so what's left?

If the universe can exist without consciousness, to whom would it matter?



#11 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:34 PM

Nobody, but what we think of as the universe can't exist without consciousness because what we of as the universe is just that, what we think of it as. It's just a model.based on what sensory inputs.



#12 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 06:56 PM

If the universe can exist without consciousness, to whom would it matter?


Those beings that can and do exist.

The Universe is not about consciousness persay , but about the floor on which life can take hold .

Without this floor consciousness can not explore the material existence of life .

Which is a learning experience of life forms .

#13 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2675 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 07:33 AM

Nobody, but what we think of as the universe can't exist without consciousness because what we of as the universe is just that, what we think of it as. It's just a model.based on what sensory inputs.

It's an interesting contention of yours, but I must say I do not subscribe to this view.

 

It seems to me that science relies on there being an objective reality, i.e. one that is not merely a function of an individual consciousness. The whole of science rests on the finding that reproducible, i.e. objectively consistent, observations can be made of the physical world, from which models of objective utility can be put together by mankind, in a collective endeavour. While nobody is so arrogant as to claim any model actually "is" reality, if there were no objective reality there would be nothing objective to model. 

 

In the same vein, it seems to me that when we make a statement such as the sun "exists", what we mean by "exists" is that there is general objective agreement about a collective set of sensations and experiences, which has been given the linguistic label "the sun", for short. Ditto for the universe or anything else.  


Edited by exchemist, 28 March 2017 - 07:34 AM.


#14 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 08:57 AM

It's an interesting contention of yours, but I must say I do not subscribe to this view.

 

It seems to me that science relies on there being an objective reality, i.e. one that is not merely a function of an individual consciousness. The whole of science rests on the finding that reproducible, i.e. objectively consistent, observations can be made of the physical world, from which models of objective utility can be put together by mankind, in a collective endeavour. While nobody is so arrogant as to claim any model actually "is" reality, if there were no objective reality there would be nothing objective to model. 

 

In the same vein, it seems to me that when we make a statement such as the sun "exists", what we mean by "exists" is that there is general objective agreement about a collective set of sensations and experiences, which has been given the linguistic label "the sun", for short. Ditto for the universe or anything else.  

 

Is this identical to Berkeley's continuity argument? The tree in the quad stuff?



#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2675 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 09:06 AM

Is this identical to Berkeley's continuity argument? The tree in the quad stuff?

You mean A-wal's contention? Yes I think it is.

 

And I am trying to be Johnsonian about it. Or rather, I suppose I am arguing for "consensus reality".



#16 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1311 posts

Posted 29 March 2017 - 02:16 PM

In a trivial sense it's undeniable that the universe only exists as a result of consciousness because how we define the universe can only be done through the use of our senses and our senses create a construct that cannot exist without consciousness. That doesn't mean that the universe itself needs consciousness to exist but it does to exist in any way that we can define it.

I think it can be taken a step further. If you take away the construct created by our sensory inputs then what does that leave? I don't think there's any reason to think that what's left is 'real' any more than abstract mathematics is real. All it needs to be is consistent and that's exactly what maths is.

The materialist worldview is flawed for a similar reason that creationism is flawed. If there's a creator then what created the creator? If it doesn't need a creator then why does the universe? It's an extra step that's not needed. The idea that a material universe existed first and then gave rise to something that was able to perceive itself is also an extra step that's not needed. In that view the universe has to send information to consciousness which then has to be able to receive the information and to create something understandable for it to perceive it. It's much simpler if the universe arises from consciousness.

An interesting thing to think about is whether or not we experience the universe in the same kind of way as each other. Does my construct based on my senses in any way resemble anyone elses? It could be as unique as a finger print, it could be that members of the same species experience a similar universe or it be that all life basically experience the same thing, or anything inbetween those options.



#17 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2675 posts

Posted 29 March 2017 - 02:24 PM

In a trivial sense it's undeniable that the universe only exists as a result of consciousness because how we define the universe can only be done through the use of our senses and our senses create a construct that cannot exist without consciousness. That doesn't mean that the universe itself needs consciousness to exist but it does to exist in any way that we can define it.

I think it can be taken a step further. If you take away the construct created by our sensory inputs then what does that leave? I don't think there's any reason to think that what's left is 'real' any more than abstract mathematics is real. All it needs to be is consistent and that's exactly what maths is.

The materialist worldview is flawed for a similar reason that creationism is flawed. If there's a creator then what created the creator? If it doesn't need a creator then why does the universe? It's an extra step that's not needed. The idea that a material universe existed first and then gave rise to something that was able to perceive itself is also an extra step that's not needed. In that view the universe has to send information to consciousness which then has to be able to receive the information and to create something understandable for it to perceive it. It's much simpler if the universe arises from consciousness.

An interesting thing to think about is whether or not we experience the universe in the same kind of way as each other. Does my construct based on my senses in any way resemble anyone elses? It could be as unique as a finger print, it could be that members of the same species experience a similar universe or it be that all life basically experience the same thing, or anything inbetween those options.

In response to your last para, I think most scientists would have to answer that we certainly do see things the same way, for the reasons I gave in post 13. If there were no objective consensus about how the physical universe behaves, there could be no science.


Edited by exchemist, 29 March 2017 - 02:25 PM.