Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[neutrino_cannon]

Re: Definition of Objective Reality

Impy what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?
Do you consider 1+1=2 objective? Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?
Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.
If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

I consider it objective and testable that one apple, when placed next to another apple, leaves an arrangement of two apples, but don't take my word for it, you can try yourself.

Obviously, the above sentance is unweildy and awkward. by the providence of our absurdly large craniums, we are able to concieve of symbols as a shorthand for the amazing revelation that one apple, with another apple is in fact two apples.

The underlying principle is very objective. Saying that the symbols are non-intrinsic and strictly relational is petty. Consider our language. There is nothing intrinsic about the odd colection of hoots and yowels we call the englich language. There is obviously no objective way, in your notion of things, to transmit information of any nature, meaning that this entire discussion is subjective and pointless.

Oh... wait...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Or equally probable:

1) A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

2) The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

What evidence exist that makes your explanation more likely than either of these two?

#1: Unparsimonious. You are adding a hypothetical entitiy with a hypothetical ability, which only complicates the equation.

#2: Unparsimonious, and unlikely. Adding complexity, plus all observations indicate that the world functions independently of me.

It is more complex to assume the existence of an entitiy capable of imagining the universe than to assume the existence of the universe.

My explanation fits the observations. Predictions based on my explanation can be observed to be true. In the words of PixyMisa (from way back ) : The world acts as if it exists. We can test this and it turns out to be correct.

Hans

 

[Correa Neto]

Re: mind does not exist

QUOTE]Originally posted by Franko

...

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I never said that I trust some forms of perceptions, and not others. All that I said is I can classify perceptions into 2 main categories: Sensory Perceptions (External Inputs), and Memories (Internal Inputs). Memories are derived from (originate from) Sensory perceptions, the only difference is that external inputs require an external source, while memories do not.
...
Your entire line of arguments seems to revolve around the notion that Matter exist independently of consciousness (perception).
...
[/QUOTE]

Well, if its like this, what about when one remembers dreams or some mental contruct, say, like a project?
What about dreams where one feels pain?
What about hallucinations (specially those induced by drugs)?
I imagined a planet. Does it actually exists during the brief period I am imagining it? Am I god to the tiny little people that live there? Do they have a soul? Are there little people inside my brain?

Our brain, specially when malfunctioning, can create simulacres of external information inputs that are virtually indiscernible from real ones. This does not mean anything else than whats stated above- the brain can create simulacres of external data input. And for those who feel them, these sensations may be, in a sense, real. But they are not actually abducted by aliens, for example.

The universe exists independently of us. It does not "cares" (better say if the universe could care, it would not care about)about us. It is irrelevant for the universe if we exist or not. If we did not existed, the universe would still exist. There are stars that we can not see (but in some cases we can see them trough telescopes), the Earth has a core composed of molten metal and we can not see it (but we can make images of it using seismic waves). If existence depends on perception, the Earths´s core and these stars were created only after mankind invented these instruments?

Regardless of word games, matter exist independently of consciousness (perception).

"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies. In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality. This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

Do you really think a person with a minimum ammount of scientific knoweledge woud fall on that?

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know if I understood you correctly, so forgive me if I missed the point. But. The problem with that assesment is that memeories are created by external stimulus. The process by which the brain stores memory is some whatl understood (it involves the hypocampus along with the requsite neuro transmitters).

This assumes the existence of a physical brain. Normally, I would agree with you, but for the sake of this argument, I was assuming that the physical world is illusionary which implies that the mind and the brain are two entirely seperate things.

 

[Doubt]

If perception is required for things to exist, then what are the boundaries?

If I perceive something that is not there, (a hallucination,) it does not have to follow the laws of physics. (Floating bunnies anyone?) If I perceive something that is real, it does appear to follow the laws of physics.

Shouldn’t there be some intermediate condition where things that we perceive of as being real disappear or break the laws of physics? Also, consider the opposite. Shouldn’t hallucinations be able to pass on into the real world and start to obey TLOP?

Rabbit launching catapults don’t count. Ballistic hares are following TLOP.

 

[Michael Redman]

I don’t see how you can have awareness without existence, nor do I see how you could have existence without awareness. Could you explain what you mean?

I'm just saying that one has to come before the other. Your brain can't have been created by its own thoughts. It must exist before the awareness can happen.

I guess this assumes that awareness is the result of the actions of a physical brain, which I think it clearly is. If you think that the awareness came from somewhere else, I suppose it would be possible for the awareness to create the physical existance as it formed. I see no reason to think that this would be the case, however.

I also think it's quite obvious that there is no point in arguing about different views of reality that can not be proven one way or the other. I'm not going to come back and see if you ask any further questions, so you'll have to be satisfied with that.

 

[Franko]

Franko said:
I don’t see how you can have awareness without existence, nor do I see how you could have existence without awareness. Could you explain what you mean?

Michael Redman replied:

I'm just saying that one has to come before the other. Your brain can't have been created by its own thoughts. It must exist before the awareness can happen.

Only if you are assuming the Materialist Paradigm.

What I am saying is that there is no point in talking about observation (necessary for the existence of “matter”) without first talking about the Observer (that which Perceives).

The fundamental premise of Materialism is that the Object came first, and then created the Observer. I contend that this is an unfounded and untestable hypothesis.

I guess this assumes that awareness is the result of the actions of a physical brain, which I think it clearly is.

And I would say that if you have taken the Materialist premise as gospel fact that this is not a surprising revelation.

If you think that the awareness came from somewhere else, I suppose it would be possible for the awareness to create the physical existence as it formed. I see no reason to think that this would be the case, however.

I would contend that not only is this the more reasonable and logical assumption, but it is a more consistent and parsimonious explanation of observed reality.

I also think it's quite obvious that there is no point in arguing about different views of reality that can not be proven one way or the other.

Yes, I have noticed that when it begins to dawn on Materialist that they have deluded themselves and simply traded one unproveable Religion for another that they become more hesitant about expounding the metaphysical certitude of their belief system.

 

[Upchurch]

One would be tempted to ask what can be proven, if anything....

 

[Franko]

Doubt:
If perception is required for things to exist, then what are the boundaries?

If I perceive something that is not there, (a hallucination,) it does not have to follow the laws of physics. (Floating bunnies anyone?) If I perceive something that is real, it does appear to follow the laws of physics.

This reality – this universe – is generated by a single entity (a single consciousness). That entity, like all entities, is consistent in her behavior. That is what makes her an individual.

If you and I are present in the same room seated at a table, then She is the one telling both You and I where the table is, how large it is, each of our relative position, and the position of other inanimate objects in the room. You could think of Her (“God”) as like the program that generates the Matrix.

When you cease communicating with Her … when she ceases to transmit information to you (two sides of the same coin), then you are disconnected from this universe. You sleep, and when you sleep, then Your mind becomes the source of the Laws of Physics, and the source of all the “matter” as well.

A hallucination or delusion is a similar phenomena.

Shouldn’t there be some intermediate condition where things that we perceive of as being real disappear or break the laws of physics?

Not really, because either you are receiving information from TLOP (“God”), or you are not.

Also, consider the opposite. Shouldn’t hallucinations be able to pass on into the real world and start to obey TLOP?

If you possessed significant influence over TLOP you could imagine something in your head, and then transmit that perception to her in such a way that She caused it to manifest in this reality.

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
One would be tempted to ask what can be proven, if anything....

Lots of things; why is it any different?

I still contend that my beliefs are inherently the same as your beliefs. Our main difference of opinion appears to regard a single foundational premise.

Or you could say that I just believe in one less form of “matter” (“God”) than you do.

 

[Upchurch]

How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

 

[Franko]

Correa, you are correct in a sense that ”matter” exist independently of consciousness. The matter in this universe exist independently of Your consciousness, but that is because Your consciousness is NOT the consciousness that is generating the “matter”.

Correa Neto:
Well, if its like this, what about when one remembers dreams or some mental construct, say, like a project?

The difference between this universe and your dream universe is that YOU generate the “matter” and laws of physics in your dreams, whereas a different Individual generates the “matter” and laws of physics in this universe. The other main difference is that YOU are a Solipsist in your dreams. (Generally) there are no other “real” consciousnesses in your dreams, only your own.

In this universe every other living consciousness you see is fundamentally no different than yourself. This reality is a shared reality, your dreams (for the most part) are not.

Think of this reality (the Universe) as a hologram, and the Algorithm that is generating that hologram is called TLOP. Except TLOP is not really a giant computer somewhere, She is a mind inherently just like yours.

What about dreams where one feels pain?

Pain is ultimately a mental phenomena caused by negative Inputs (or feedback). Both positive and negative inputs are generated by all formal systems (all sets of “laws of physics”).

What about hallucinations (specially those induced by drugs)?

If you can stop thinking of “matter” as matter for a moment, and instead think of it as information, you could consider drugs or alcohol as a meme (or algorithm) that is run in your consciousness. Many drug-memes alter (or adversely effect) the connection between your own consciousness and TLOP’s. Your mind does not have a good connection to the source of information about reality, and so it makes up things (hallucinations) to fill in the gaps.

I imagined a planet. Does it actually exists during the brief period I am imagining it? Am I god to the tiny little people that live there? Do they have a soul? Are there little people inside my brain?

If you fell asleep and dreamed you were on such a planet I contend that it would be as real for you at that moment as any other reality you might experience.

Our brain, specially when malfunctioning, can create simulacres of external information inputs that are virtually indiscernible from real ones. This does not mean anything else than whats stated above- the brain can create simulacres of external data input. And for those who feel them, these sensations may be, in a sense, real. But they are not actually abducted by aliens, for example.

I agree, but that is only because you and I can objectively observe as events unfold, and we can perceive that what this individual thought they experienced is not what actually occurred in our realities.

The universe exists independently of us.

Sure, in the same way that I exist independently of YOU.

It does not "cares" (better say if the universe could care, it would not care about)about us.

If that is the case, then why did the universe spawn/create or bring you here?

If you want to claim it was a purely random and unplanned event, then you might as well claim that all of your actions and words are similarly unplanned and random.

It is irrelevant for the universe if we exist or not.

Do you mean in the same way it is irrelevant to YOU whether or not Me and everyone else exist?

Perhaps you are dreaming now, and everyone and everything is just a figment of your imagination?

If we did not existed, the universe would still exist.

And you have determined this how exactly?

There are stars that we can not see (but in some cases we can see them through telescopes), the Earth has a core composed of molten metal and we can not see it (but we can make images of it using seismic waves). If existence depends on perception, the Earth´s core and these stars were created only after mankind invented these instruments?

Some of the world was created in advance, before the Dungeonmaster really got the game going, and other things She “dreamed up” as the game went along. But until someone asked her where some untravelled path lead, no one really knew where the path lead.

 

[Franko]

How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

Your perceptions are a source of information. Whether or not that information can be trusted or not is determined by logical analysis (science, reason, logic). Accumulating information over time one is eventually able to perceive persistent and predictable patterns within the dataflow (Bayes). These patterns can be considered separate and distinct from the information itself. The patterns being forces and the raw information being energy which is acted upon by those forces.

In other words there are rules to the game (forces), and there are pieces to the game (energy or “matter”). By observing how the pieces move in the past and present, you are able to determine how they will move in the future (i.e. Truth).

 

[Upchurch]

Any conclusion that is based on potentially false information is still potentially false, even if that conclusion is derived in a logically consistent manner. Garbage in, garbage out.

To repeat the question: How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

 

[Franko]

Hypothesis: A (MRC)
About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Hypothesis: B (Franko)
A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

Hypothesis: C (Franko)
The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

Franko:
What evidence exist that makes your explanation (Hypothesis A) more likely than either of these two (B or C)?]

MRC:
Hypothesis B: Unparsimonious. You are adding a hypothetical entitiy with a hypothetical ability, which only complicates the equation.

I’m not adding anything that you haven’t already asserted. Your explanation calls upon TLOP, and so does mine. Your explanation is the UNPARSIMONIOUS version, in that YOU are asserting an entire universe filled with self-existing “matter” something you have absolutely no evidence for, and something which is completely untestable or verifiable.

Hypothesis C: Unparsimonious, and unlikely. Adding complexity, plus all observations indicate that the world functions independently of me.

All of who’s observations MRC? Your own? If you only have YOUR OWN observations to rely on, then YOUR OWN observations are the ONLY observations you have to rely on. That is EXACTLY what Hypothesis C is stating.

Really Hypothesis C is just a mathematically simplified version of YOUR Hypothesis A.

Could you please explain again how the simpler version of the theory is actually the more complex version of the theory?

It is more complex to assume the existence of an entitiy capable of imagining the universe than to assume the existence of the universe.

Unfortunately for you TLOP is not so easily swept from observation.

And TLOP is undoubtedly the source of ALL your information about this reality.

My explanation fits the observations. Predictions based on my explanation can be observed to be true.

Really? Then please explain how we can observe “matter” existing independently of consciousness, or please provide the experimental evidence that conclusively demonstrates “matter” making consciousness?

In the words of PixyMisa (from way back ) : The world acts as if it exists. We can test this and it turns out to be correct.

Hey that’s funny, because I also act as if I exist, yet you have been unable to prove that I actually do as anything beyond a figment of your imagination!

 

[Franko]

ratman:
What if the receipt, perception and processing of INPUT is an illusion? Not the data itself, but the process.

I think Upchurch was trying to ask why to trust the internal over the external. Someone can say "I think, therefore I am!" But what if that thought isn't a sign of conciousness, but a byproduct of some unpercieved process that has nothing to do with conciousness or awareness?

Why trust the internal over the external?

I never said that you could trust the internal inputs over the external inputs. I merely stated that you could separate the inputs into two categories.

Furthermore, I never stated that you couldn’t trust the external inputs. In fact, Upchurch was the one who claimed that the inputs could be tampered with, and I explained why I didn’t believe that was the case.

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Any conclusion that is based on potentially false information is still potentially false, even if that conclusion is derived in a logically consistent manner. Garbage in, garbage out.

Okay, so explain why you believe that “matter” has to have an independent existence from consciousness in order for incoming information to be objective?

All the term “Objective” means is that You and I agree we saw the same thing. Why is self-existing “matter” a requirement for you and I to agree about an observation?

To repeat the question: How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

I have no idea of why you believe that “matter” self-existing independent of consciousness is a necessary condition for objective reality?

 

[Upchurch]

....and we're back to misdirection and changing the subject. Can you answer the question or not? How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

Can anyone answer the question?

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
....and we're back to misdirection and changing the subject.

No, you seem to be stating that information can be trusted under one premise, but not under the other. Without explaining your reason for believing this is the case it is impossible for me to comment on it coherently.

Can you answer the question or not?

You haven’t asked a question, you have simply made an unfounded assumption and you are asking me to disprove that assumption without knowing the reason you are making it in the first place.

Can you explain why self-existing “matter” is a necessary condition for objective reality? If you cannot, then there is nothing for me to respond to.

How could one prove anything if one can't trust any of one's own perceptions?

Can anyone answer the question?

What makes you assume that faith in materialism is a necessary requirement for objective reality? You sound like a Christian crying that if his religion isn’t True the sky will surely fall.

 

[Upchurch]

Allow me to summarize:

I'm arguing against the immaterialist notion, which you'll note is the topic of the thread, that our perception of the material world is illusion and only our perceptions of the mind are real.

The implication of this immaterialist notion is that what we perceive as the material world is a falsehood created either by the individual's mind or by some unknown agent. However, if either of these are true, then all preceptions must be held suspect of being illusion, even those perceptions that we have a mind at all. And yet, the immaterialists (e.g. Antonio and Ian) still insist that the mind exists and that the material world does not. This is inconsistent and based on their personal opinions and preferences.

This is the limit of the argument I am making within the context of this thread alone. My personal opinions of why materialism may or may not be true is not pertenent to the argument of whether this immaterialist notion is true. If we are to discuss my opinions of materialism, it should be done in another thread because it is not the topic of this thread.