A real thing does not become a real thing unless observed. How is gravity observer independent? Please define gravity as observer independent. A law is nothing more than an observation. Nature doesn't follow Laws, Laws follow Nature... If it didn't happen in Nature, it wouldn't be observed and wouldn't be a Law. Reality exists, but it's existence is subjective. Example scientific objectivity/reality establish via inter subjective verifiability wiki quote is here . Any good science student knows, a hypothesis is only as good as evidence it is based on. While the wave function collapse hypothesis is losing favor with quantum physicists, the entire system is still observer dependent. What is reality, without anyone to define it as such? Do concepts like real and exist make any sense without a frame of reference, (namely the observer) to be measured from? Thinking, cognition, a process of establishing accurate links to causality by an inference agent (mind). In this case, if one shall fail to establish an accurate link, or analogy, it can be false. Now, lets talk about mind. If naturalism is objectively true, mind is nothing but neural dynamics. Dissect matter, and you get atoms that are constantly popping in and out of existence (of our 3D world). However, if sentience is just neural dynamics, the constant transmission of its building block (atom) into parallel Universes has to have a effect on sentience. It will distort it, in my opinion. But the sentience of a being stay the same. I think it is a strong evidence that sentience is matter independent (not implying "soul"). Another experiment. The double slit one. It kind of proves that atom behaves as energy when not observed, but behave as particle when observed. I think it again strongly suggests that reality is observer dependent. Now, coming to the "usefulness" of finding the reality. Usefulness, necessity, quests. It is what mind creates. Even if we agree that objects interaction is independent of a subject's mind, the search for "reality" is still very much subjective as it depends on thought and thought alone.
How can the mind create what it doesn't understand ? We don't have a clue of what gravity is and how it works, much less the strong nuclear force. To simply say that we can create all of this without even knowing how it works is far fetched at best. The illusion is believing you understand the illusion. I don't agree with this "The individual mind interprets the reality outside and will be wrong until it matches the universe's reality." Your reality is well "your" reality, we would be living in a very dull world if our perceptions of reality were completely uniform. We would have a very myopic outlook. We all have a different view and most of it is not wrong, just depends on perspective. Diversity our strength, division our bane. This I find amazing , someone who can see numbers as colours.
I think your 100 percent correct here Mr R29k. Now since i´ve grown and went through many hard things in life i learned one important thing and that is:Live your life as you think it is right and just do the things you think are right for you and enjoy life as much as you can. Most people adjust themselves to rules that where put up by people over 1000-2000 years ago.For example be born, go a few years to kindergarden, then to the school and the school must be completed with very good notes otherwise your a dead man,after school find a good job so the damn neighbors wont think nothing bad of you....etc Like R29k said we rarely think outside the box,we only hold on some rules from our ancestors,whether we think they make sense or not. I´ll make a example and people please don´t get me wrong it´s just my opinion:I´m Christian and don´t go to church,wasn´t there for 10 years and i don´t pray and so on...many people would say now that our ancestors where doing this for 2000 years,your not normal... Now another example:Muslims don´t eat pork because there ancestors got diseased and now they follow this rule,but when you think about it what is pork meat so different from lamb,they are both meat from animals.But this rule was made over thousands of years ago and people stick to it,even if it makes sense or not. Many people think I'm crazy because I never liked school and did not consider it important for me, I just live my life as I think it is right for me, but I can listen to an advice and at the end I always do what I think is best for me. What i want to say is,the life that we are living now a days is bulls... and sooner or letter as R29k said we are all going to fail and destruction will be the only thing. The purpose of life is: Be born and live as happy and freely these 70-80 years as you can and do what you want and just have fun,because it´s a very short life and there is no need of stress or hating each other... I never thought as the most people and that´s why i sometimes got trouble in life,because people can´t understand that,how can someone live outside the so called rules that some ancestors made up,and now scientists that want to teach people with some crap about how life started,big bang theorie,aliens,illusions... I hope no one feels himself getting attacked or something by my post,it´s just some thoughts.
@Yen Yes I agree, that is certainly the heart of the discussion for me and worth clarification.. Can something exist without somebody who is perceiving it?
If you go along with this thinking it would mean that possibly when you are sitting alone in a room you don't exist.
I don't get this. You don't agree with my bold sentence (of which I thought you are stating at the first quote). What else do you mean with your first statement? Btw: I don't agree with the sentence also. Where is the universe? It is in your mind! So how could it be different to your personal reality? How could be interpretation different from perceiving? Both is the job of the mind. Where are your eyes? They are in your mind! You cannot determine Jupiter without to interpret 'your' sensation of a spheric object that has that red eye. You create Jupiter by perceiving it! Why are so many fooled by their mind? "I see the sun with my eyes, but I interpret the sensation with my mind." Aha. So there are two 'I's with two minds? One that sees the sun and one that interpretes the sensation?
Clarity to the question "Can something exist without somebody who is perceiving it?", I knew I could count on you.. I believe I am not my body.. Please be respectful R29k .. No need to turn the exchange of thoughts into a mockery..
The issue I have with the bold statement is that you are saying what the mind interprets is "wrong", I don't subscribe to that view. What I am saying is that there is an external reality, one bound by rules and NOT influenced by interpretation. Then there is your interpretation of it, the external reality, when you observe it. If you want you can call it internal reality. None are wrong, the external reality just "is" and is there for all to see. However we all live our lives on a very tiny slice of the external reality, we are able to perceive only a small part of the external. Our heaven and hell are right here. Two people can observe the same thing and have differing opinions of it simply because we have different perspectives. Our internal reality differs but yet the external remains the same. You are saying that everything is created when we observe it. I think the whole theory would be flawed or misunderstood. For your mind to create a reality it would need a complete understanding of what it is creating to create it. And the fact is that there are many things that exist that we don't understand, so how could we create it? If you want to add credibility to this theory it would make sense to say that reality is in God's mind and we are just observing a small part. Are you drunk sir there is nothing disrespectful about it. If you sit all alone it is possible you are not looking at your body. The same way everything around you would need an observer to exist, you would also need someone observing you to exist, unless you have a different theory like for example we create ourselves ?! I don't agree with the whole theory to begin with so I am not going to try to figure it out.
I certainly have more, for me, meaningful things to do than debate whether the tone of your communication is disrespectful at times..There is a whole body of evidence that stands for that.. So you don't agree with the whole theory..That doesn't however mean that an attempt by others to express their individual point of view, which happens to be contrary to yours, should be encroached upon by disrespect. So your not going to try and figure it out .. If that's the case then why even engage in the dialogue You said in your post yesterday " Human thinking is fundamentally flawed, we very rarely think outside the box. Our thinking is clouded by our ignorant past !", then this idea would appear to be outside the box for you.. The hive has been waiting for you
This reminds me of Kant's take on explaining the nature of reality. Noumena as opposed to a phenomena. It's something that still bothers people who are uncomfortable with quantum physics. "Although we cannot conceive of such an object, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, metaphysics must not try to talk about what exists, but instead about what is perceived, and how it is perceived. This insight allows Kant to set up a distinction between phenomena and noumena - phenomena being that which can be experienced, and noumena being things that are beyond the possibility of experience - things in themselves. Nothing can be truly experienced or else you would experience the noumena itself. The phenomena is only the representation of the object/noumena that a person receives through their sensibilities. The phenomena is a representation of an object not the object itself, nothing more. Kant then discussed and expanded on the faculties of experience we have, and thus was able to come up with a system of metaphysics that applied to the world as we perceive it."
The concept is not outside the box, it is just flawed. By the way what I was talking about yesterday has nothing to do with perception but with the thought process.
The answer first, the (poor) attempt to explain will follow. The answer regarding objects: No Regarding Reality: Yes. Somebody and something are objects in duality. I am referring first to some-thing / some-body. (Objects). The pseudo subject (I idea) creates the idea of the world outside. Both happens in the mind. So the universe is in one's mind a personal idea. To be existent means it must be separated from me. And that this can be true we need 'me' = an observer. We don't live in the world. The world is our idea in our mind. The world is within us. When this personal idea changes then the personal world changes. For instance when you sleep (the) your awake world does not exist, since your awake idea of it does not exist. Instead of your dream world exists which is perceived by you (your dream idea of 'I'). The illusion of a world outside independent from an observer is strengthened by the 'others' who were awake 'that' time telling from the awake world. So one thinks it must have existed while one has slept. And in deep sleep there is no mind and hence no idea of 'I' who could perceive a world. So there no world exists. The only 'thing' that really exists is that what survives all that. That what is looking your of your eyes, that what cannot have a name. And the existence of this (Self) 'I am' needs not to be perceived since it never could. It simply IS. It is your real identity. You even don't exist when you are as a pair in a room, lol. Or in other words your existence is as real as your existence when you dream. The problem of all that is that objects don't exist. But one exists. The idea of oneself is illusionary and the world also. Ideas come and go, ideas are relative, objects also. They are trapped in time. When one thinks he is the body (an object) then he will die and he will take his personal universe with him! This is the most bitter pill to swallow! Bang, dead, no body, no universe, RIP! When one IS what he IS then he is not different from anything and will be eternal. I have some problems with the English language. To eliminate them I want to add: Perception: To me perception does not need obligatory one of the 5 senses. (Which are actually in one's mind also, btw.) Example: Visualization in mind. One can learn it. You perceive an object with your eyes. You turn it around you imprint its shape. Then you put it aside and close your eyes. Then you try to recall its shape until it appears VISIBLY in mind. This is also perception by 'my' meaning. The object's existence is as real as when perceived with the eyes.'The eyes' are also an idea of the mind. Existence: To recognize the existence of an object, it has to be an object that is separated to 'me'. But it requires me to determinate. The fallen tree. If one's personal reality is cause and effect, then it makes a sound. Anyway there is one perceiving the sound. (The idea and conclusion of sound is present in the mind) If one's reality is the sensation of the event with the eyes / ears: Then there is no sound. Because there is no presence of the observer. Either way. There is no existence without one who is perceiving it. This means yes and no are valid answers in a illusionary world regarding the tree. To get the illusionary character one needs to understand what self-alienating means. We (our mind) has the attribute to give own existence to objects. An existence which seems to be absolute independent from 'us' It also has the attribute to give a own meaning to 'us'. We have an 'I' idea. This 'I' idea is perceived as pseudo subject. Both is as process self-alienating. We alienate the Self, the Reality. So objects seem to exist per se, independent from 'us' Self alienating also means to ignore that 'we' (the idea of 'I') is actually responsible for their existence, because it are 'we' who give a meaning to all the objects. The mind creates the universe, now. As an idea, as an object different to 'us'. So what is the 'right' way to perceive? To stop the self-alienation process. It will unveil the Self. It will destroy the illusion, it will make one awake from the last dream. When one is watching the sky the sky is watching itself. When one reads a page of a book the page is reading itself. So now we are at a point where one thinks that I got nuts. Yes, it is the mind again. Put it aside and be as you are, lol. All this is really fascinating and the idea of madness will always be a part of such discussions. It is also interesting that there are people who can read 'between' the lines of that what I try to say. I have met people in my life trying to say the same. Since they are a minority we mostly appear to be crazy. Once again this is not meant to teach this is meant to inspire. And no worries I am not mad. I feel great. Next time when one goes outside to have a walk in the nature, try to see it not to be different to 'you'. See its greatness and be happy that its existence is actually one existence. Have a look at a beautiful flower and recognize its beauty as one beauty, not different. The only thing that is real. Discard the idea to see objects to be separated from you. Stop the self-alienating process by giving a separate idea. Let the mind rest. Be as you are. (happy). WoW I have managed to post without to mention religion, lol. (Oops I did it again, lol) It seems most minds start to struggle when posted about.... Why do we enjoy mind resting activities? Why do we enjoy to relax, to have a walk, to have a journey, to listen to music? Because there is a force in us that wants to unveil the Self. Let it happen, forget my post.
If we go by this thinking then there is nothing, no Universe, No Earth, No eyes ... Nothing is real only the self which is real because ? And when you find the self you wake up to what ? That whole idea would almost certainly have to include a higher being who would probably be making the self real unless we do everything ourselves and bypass a God. "The object's existence is as real as when perceived with the eyes.'The eyes' are also an idea of the mind" and the mind is an idea of ? The self? And the self is an idea of ? God? And God is an idea of ? This is how I understand all this. God had a dream and in the dream it created the Universe and it determined that certain things in the dream could become real and leave the dream. Now if you assume that God is eternal then when we leave the dream we become eternal also. So basically we have the same religious theories being rehashed but with a bit of a twist to it. We could also forego religion and just say the whole objective is to find the self and wake up.
it is with reluctance that i reply to this thread again. not because i can`t be bothered to try and figure it out, but because it has dawned on me ages ago that i lack the neccesary intelligence and perception to do so.. a man`s perception of reality and the real thing may vastly differ, that i do know. and it will not make the poor man any wiser or happier to try and compare the two.. i can only appreciate it when i read peoples thoughts about trying to relate reality as perceived, and reality as it really is..
Yen sir, here our (human) memory plays an important role ,is not it? So we are nothing more than our memories? If our memories get wiped away for example person in coma/ brain dead or people suffering from Alzheimer's , are we simply starting a new identity from scratch? Is there anything in our identity that can survive a total memory loss? Now I agree what your thought want to convey . Sir John Eckles who won the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine several years ago made this statement, "I want you to understand that there are no colors in the real world. That there are no textures in the real world. There are no fragrances in the real world. There is no beauty, there is no ugliness. Nothing of the sort. Out there is a chaos of energy soup and energy fields. Literally. We take that and somewhere inside ourselves we create a world. Somewhere inside ourselves it all happens." Somewhere I read a conversation between a spiritual master and his student in India. At one point the student looked at his master and he said, "I don't know about you. You must live in a different world." And the master said, "No. We live in exactly the same world. The only difference is you see yourself in the world, and I see the whole world in myself. It's a minor perceptual shift that you need to make." The Greek philosopher Heraculutus compared the human body to a river. He said a river is a very mysterious thing. When you look at a river it looks the same to you in every second of its existence but in fact it's not the same river. He said you cannot step into the same river twice because new water flows in all the time. When we're talk about the "self", to what do we refer? Is it this body of flesh and bone? If so, the body is constantly changing, molecules being added and subtracted. Few people would say that the amputation of my limb would amount to the destruction of my self, so there must be something else I mean by "self" that persists through this. So is it my mind? my memories and tastes , my likes and dislikes and fears and hopes and attitudes or personality. Well, these are constantly changing, too. The question, again, is where does one draw the line? Small changes seem to be incorporated into the idea of the self - I'm still myself if I wake up tomorrow morning and no longer like eating bread toast for the breakfast. Larger changes are not so easily done, however, such as in the cases where massive head trauma results in sudden, complete changes of personality, or total amnesia. am I still me if this body receives a blow to the head and wakes up unable to ever again to regain itself or recall my name, my history, my experiences to this point? If not, where did "me" thought go? We cannot trust our senses at all! can we? After all, the senses tell us that the earth is flat and we don't believe that anymore. The senses tell us that the ground that we stand on is stationary and we know it's spinning at dizzying speeds and hurtling through outer space at thousands of miles an hour. The senses tell us things have a certain taste, smell, size, texture. Maybe that's not the way they really are. There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to exactly how many senses there are, because of differing definitions of a sense. In general, one can say that a "sense" is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived. School children are routinely taught that there are five senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste; a classification traditionally attributed to Aristotle). It is generally agreed that there are at least nine different senses in humans, and a minimum of two more observed in other organisms. How life would be without five senses? Would it be this the real world? Just a thought... We can imagine what happen if some senses are not there because we can able to see people around us who don't have one or other sense and we know how useful a sense is. Now, if we compare life without senses with life with senses, then surely we feel that life might be very different but we are missing an important point that if a sense is not there at all then there were not even any imagination of that sense or how that sense make a difference in life. In short, life is as full as it today if you think from the condition of a human kind with four senses. Human has five sense but we don't know how many senses different animals have. It is quite possible that there are some sense that some species have and human don't. We are not aware the use of those sense and we can't imagine even how our life with such senses. Similarly, if there is an entire kind of species of human that developed with just four or three senses, say for example without listening ability, they never know what sound actually means and how good life is with sound. It is wrong to judge the life without senses when we have that, because to loose something after you get that is different and never to know something exists is different. It is like to say some birds can't able to fly so they are at disadvantage compare to other bird species who can fly. But to birds that can't fly that never an issue to think because their evolution made them compatible with non-flying ability. So, if human kind doesn't have some sense, then it might be at some disadvantage from our today's knowledge but in real case of such phenomena, there were no difference in life in general.
I have a question. A girlfriend came over, and I mentioned and showed her this thread, about the falling tree and nobody there to hear it fall, and yes or no sound. She's a teacher, she teaches 13-14 year old kids. Like me, she doesn't understand all this philosophical thinking and this talk about different realities. This is her question. She would like you to explain to her why the falling tree doesn't make a sound if there's nobody around to hear it fall. She would like you to explain it in simple words that she can understand. She would like you to explain it in a way that she can ask her kids this question, and explain it to them, and they could understand. I would be grateful if you could do this for her and me.
@R29k We think not that much different than it might appear. "What I am saying is that there is an external reality, one bound by rules and NOT influenced by interpretation." Your interpretation is that it is not influenced by interpretation and bound by rules, which are also interpretations of reality. "However we all live our lives on a very tiny slice of the external reality, we are able to perceive only a small part of the external" So you have an idea of the external reality already, otherwise you would not be able to say that is it a small part of it. I guess we are using different terms. The external reality is that what I say is the only thing that really exists the Self which is not different to god. "For your mind to create a reality it would need a complete understanding of what it is creating to create it. And the fact is that there are many things that exist that we don't understand, so how could we create it?" It is that what you call internal reality. Its place is in one's mind. Each individual has its own. And when perceiving objects then one creates his own reality with all his own flaws. The mind also creates lack of knowledge and knowledge. Your Jupiter is yours. My is mine. One who knows of what Jupiter's atmosphere consists of 'perceives' Hydrogen in its atmosphere, the other perceives just clouds and the structure and the red eye which is a cyclone. To perceive Jupiter as object (aspect of the Reality) one needs to define all that what's not Jupiter and to have an 'I' idea (one). But the Reality is all in all. To define non-Jupiter creates Jupiter. But there is no absolute Jupiter. There must be one ignoring a 'part of the Reality' and that is your 'I' Idea. So you create your Jupiter by misjudging the Reality. And now you probably understand why Jupiter cannot exist as object without one who is perceiving it. So we try: External reality is what I call the ‘Self’ Internal reality what I call illusionary world of each individual. You try to determine and characterize the external world, but you cannot. You admit the external reality to be to have higher powers. Most issues are due to naming problems. The Self = your external Reality have actually no names. “The object's existence is as real as when perceived with the eyes. 'The eyes' are also an idea of the mind" and the mind is an idea of ? The self? And the self is an idea of ? God?” You see the problem? When you start to name it you have to make an idea of it. You separate the Reality into your definition and that what is you. It turns into ones internal reality. Stop Self-alienating (external reality-alienating) and it unveils. You say: “the external reality just "is" and is there for all to see. However we all live our lives on a very tiny slice of the external reality, we are able to perceive only a small part of the external. Our heaven and hell are right here. Two people can observe the same thing and have differing opinions of it simply because we have different perspectives. Our internal reality differs but yet the external remains the same. I agree….. but : ” ….and is there for all to see” Think about if that is true. I say as soon one sees it, it turns into the internal reality. ““the external reality just "is"” Yes. I call it the Self. Maybe we have now a better understanding of each others.
Are you addressing sid_16 or the community? There is no sound because nobody has heard it. What if one would be present there where the tree falls? I mean to your situation? Nothing, to you there would be no sound anyway, because you don't perceiving it, the sound does not exist to you. To the one perceiving it the sound exists. When the one is moving away as well, then to nobody the sound exists. There is no sound of this particular tree. The idea that a tree makes sound when it falls doesn't matter, this sound of this tree doesn't exist. The recorder idea: This is not allowed, because the recorder represents somebody, because somebody will hear the record, so it would be the same as if somebody would have been there to hear the tree falling...and the question says NOBODY around.
I can give you an alternate, equally valid explanation. It could be that we live in an observer created reality. It could be that the act of observation is equivalent to the act of creation. It could be that nothing exists outside of the mind. Your mind is all you have access to, so there's no way to disprove it. We also can't disprove an external reality existing independent of the mind. Why is one explanation more valid than the other? Could it just be that you were implicitly assuming one and the other seems like a strange idea? Could it be that they're equally without evidence and that neither is more justified?