Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Objective Consciousness Vs Subjective Universe


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#18 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 29 March 2017 - 02:45 PM

:) Most people fall straight into that trap. I don't mean people 'see' (I'm using sight but it's the same with all the senses) different things, that couldn't work because we know that what we perceive is consistent with what others perceive. What I mean is how do you know that what you perceive as sight is anything like what anyone else perceives as sight?



#19 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2762 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:44 AM

:) Most people fall straight into that trap. I don't mean people 'see' (I'm using sight but it's the same with all the senses) different things, that couldn't work because we know that what we perceive is consistent with what others perceive. What I mean is how do you know that what you perceive as sight is anything like what anyone else perceives as sight?

I don't know what the actual sensations of another person are, no.

 

But I do know that we can form an objective consensus about what we perceive. And that lends support to the "existence" - for all practical meanings of the word - of an objective reality. 



#20 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 03:22 AM

What we perceive yes, but not how we perceive it.

 

Somebody who's born blind can never imagine what it's like to see. Maybe none of us can ever imagine what it's like for others to see.

 

I suppose there are reasons against the idea. For a start we would maybe expect some people after head injuries to have an entirely different experience of perception so if it is different for all of us it would have to be genetic.



#21 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2762 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:43 AM

All this is fine and I have no problem with it.

 

 

What I have a problem with is what you suggested at the outset, which was that without consciousness there would be no universe.  

 

It seems to me that the collective consensus we are able to form is consistent with the idea that there is a universe that behaves as if it is objectively there, regardless of whether any given individual observes it.

 

From that it seems to me a reasonable hypothesis (invoking Ockham's Razor) to say that it can be taken to be objectively there regardless of whether or not it is observed by anyone.  

 

It seems to me that to suggest otherwise is an unnecessary and untestable hypothesis.  


Edited by exchemist, 31 March 2017 - 11:19 AM.


#22 current

current

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 08:50 PM

All this is fine and I have no problem with it.

 

 
What I have a problem with is what you suggested at the outset, which was that without consciousness there would be no universe.  
 
It seems to me that the collective consensus we are able to form is consistent with the idea that there is a universe that behaves as if it is objectively there, regardless of whether any given individual observes it.
 
From that it seems to me a reasonable hypothesis (invoking Ockham's Razor) to say that it can be taken to be objectively there regardless of whether or not it is observed by anyone.  
 
It seems to me that to suggest otherwise is an unnecessary and untestable hypothesis.


exchemist , agreed .

#23 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 08:18 AM

It's actually far simpler if consciousness fundamental and the material universe is an emergent property of it.

If the material universe is fundamental then it gave rise to material beings capable of sensing other parts of the material universe to form an abstract model based on those sensory inputs.

It's less steps if the abstract model originates purely from consciousness without the need of the material universe to create consciousness which then creates a model based on the material universe.

All we really have to go on is the abstract model created from our sensory inputs. Without consciousness that model, and therefore the only evidence we have of a material universe disappears.

Then you're left with problem of defining something that has no real context, certainly not a material one. All that's left is the underlying relationships and those can be expressed mathematically, no materialism required.

Without our abstract model of the universe there would be no concept of materialism, we would exist as a completely isolated consciousness. If the only way to infer a material universe is through an abstract model that's supposedly based on it then there's no real reason to think that the model we perceive is based on anything more than the underlying relationships that govern what we think of as the material world.

Not only is the material universe an unnecessary step but it also makes no real sense because it's a concept that has no measurable effect. If it has no measurable effect then it's not real because how real is defined.


Edited by A-wal, 04 April 2017 - 08:33 AM.


#24 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2762 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 12:19 PM

It's actually far simpler if consciousness fundamental and the material universe is an emergent property of it.

If the material universe is fundamental then it gave rise to material beings capable of sensing other parts of the material universe to form an abstract model based on those sensory inputs.

It's less steps if the abstract model originates purely from consciousness without the need of the material universe to create consciousness which then creates a model based on the material universe.

All we really have to go on is the abstract model created from our sensory inputs. Without consciousness that model, and therefore the only evidence we have of a material universe disappears.

Then you're left with problem of defining something that has no real context, certainly not a material one. All that's left is the underlying relationships and those can be expressed mathematically, no materialism required.

Without our abstract model of the universe there would be no concept of materialism, we would exist as a completely isolated consciousness. If the only way to infer a material universe is through an abstract model that's supposedly based on it then there's no real reason to think that the model we perceive is based on anything more than the underlying relationships that govern what we think of as the material world.

Not only is the material universe an unnecessary step but it also makes no real sense because it's a concept that has no measurable effect. If it has no measurable effect then it's not real because how real is defined.

I must say I think this is building castles in the air to no purpose. If we can all objectively agree on physical phenomena - and we obviously can - then it seems to me that that is what we mean when we say something is "real". I can see no other useful meaning of "real" than this.   



#25 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 12:55 PM

And that's kind of my point. If the only way that we can infer reality is through an abstract model in the conscious mind then there's absolutely no reason to think that it can exist outside of that context.



#26 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2762 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 02:31 PM

And that's kind of my point. If the only way that we can infer reality is through an abstract model in the conscious mind then there's absolutely no reason to think that it can exist outside of that context.

And what I am contending is that there is no meaning or value in artificially supposing that it does not exist independently of consciousness. If something behaves, all the time, to everyone, as if it is there, then that is exactly what we mean when we say it is there. 



#27 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 04 April 2017 - 03:09 PM

Which would mean there's no meaning or value in artificially supposing that material universe exists independently of consciousness. That's a baseless and unprovable assumption that adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge or understanding of anything.



#28 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 05 June 2018 - 07:32 AM

Which would mean there's no meaning or value in artificially supposing that material universe exists independently of consciousness. That's a baseless and unprovable assumption that adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge or understanding of anything.

 

No meaning or value--baseless, eh?   You're really are a hard-core solipsist, aren't you?


Edited by Moronium, 05 June 2018 - 07:32 AM.


#29 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:14 AM

All this is fine and I have no problem with it.

 

 

What I have a problem with is what you suggested at the outset, which was that without consciousness there would be no universe.  

 

It seems to me that the collective consensus we are able to form is consistent with the idea that there is a universe that behaves as if it is objectively there, regardless of whether any given individual observes it.

 

From that it seems to me a reasonable hypothesis (invoking Ockham's Razor) to say that it can be taken to be objectively there regardless of whether or not it is observed by anyone.  

 

It seems to me that to suggest otherwise is an unnecessary and untestable hypothesis.  

This is reminding me of another discussion over weather space and time can exist independently from each other.   Perhaps we live not only in spacetime, but also spacetimeconsciousness! :spin:



#30 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 05 June 2018 - 04:40 PM

No meaning or value--baseless, eh?

Completely.

 

No meaning or value--baseless, eh?   You're really are a hard-core solipsist, aren't you?

Yes I am. :)

 

This is reminding me of another discussion over weather space and time can exist independently from each other.

The can't. They're both part of the same 4-D manifold, time is one dimension of it.

 

 

It's easy to show that the universe can't exist without consciousness, at least not in any sense that we consider real.

 

If a tree falls in the forest without anyone around to hear it then it obviously can't create a sound because sound is purely a perception of our minds based on variations of air in our ears. It obviously doesn't look like a tree because vision is a perception of our minds based on photons entering our eyes. It obviously doesn't feel like anything because that requires physical contact to create the sense of touch in our minds. It obviously does smell or taste like anything either because those sensations are also created in our minds based on molecules in our noses and on our tongues.

 

So without conscious the universe is dark, silent, odourless, tasteless and can't be felt. That really doesn't leave anything that can be considered real.



#31 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 10:04 AM

If a tree falls in the forest without anyone around to hear it then it obviously can't create a sound because sound is purely a perception of our minds...

 

But would it still create a sound wave, one that even an unconscious slug could perceive?

 

Would it still create a sound wave even if there were no slugs around?

 

We can't see x-rays.  Does that mean they don't exist, or aren't real?


Edited by Moronium, 07 June 2018 - 10:06 AM.


#32 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 11:19 AM

But would it still create a sound wave, one that even an unconscious slug could perceive?

 

Would it still create a sound wave even if there were no slugs around?

Sound is a perception created by the mind so obviously sound can't exist without being perceived.

 

We can't see x-rays.  Does that mean they don't exist, or aren't real?

We can feel them and see their effect.



#33 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 04:11 PM

Sound is a perception created by the mind so obviously sound can't exist without being perceived.

 

You're just repeating yourself.  I didn't ask you about sound.  I asked you about sound waves (a physical phenomenon, not a mental one).

 

Sound is a mechanical wave that results from the back and forth vibration of the particles of the medium through which the sound wave is moving....The motion of the particles is parallel (and anti-parallel) to the direction of the energy transport. This is what characterizes sound waves in air as longitudinal waves.

 

http://www.physicscl...a-Pressure-Wave

 

Can sound waves exist without an ear?  Can light waves exist without an eyeball?


Edited by Moronium, 07 June 2018 - 04:20 PM.


#34 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 07 June 2018 - 05:47 PM

Sound waves can only be inferred through the perception of hearing sound. Light waves can only be inferred through the perception of seeing light. To claim that light waves and sound waves exist independently outside of the context of being perceived doesn't make sense. Sound waves can't be defined in any way other than how they sound and light waves can't be defined in any way other than how they look.

 

Of course you could define them as something other than how they look or sound but then they're no longer sound or light waves. You always have to define the universe by how it's perceived, to imagine a universe without perception you can't use any of the five senses. Something that can't be perceived is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.


Edited by A-wal, 07 June 2018 - 05:48 PM.