Philosophy Now Forum

..nameless.. wrote:We know that there is no 'physical Universe' that can exist without being perceived.

Please elaborate. As I read this, you seem to be saying that the universe could not exist prior to some beings (like us) perceiving it to exist. But how could such beings evolve - and begin to perceive the universe - without there being a physical universe that existed without being perceived in which that evolution could occur?

Arising_uk wrote: I agree that in the long run for there to be meaning there must be us but when you use 'quantum' and 'observer' in your discussions I thought you referring to the idea that the waveform of an event collapses due to observation

That is often my meaning.

but we can collapse this with a mechanical detector, no living 'observer' necessary.

At some point in the equation, a 'Conscious Perspective' (Soul) is absolutely necessary. It is my experience that there is not any point in the Universe, ever, that is not a 'Conscious Perspective'! Where there is no life, as science is continually validating by evidence.

In your tree example it will be a mechanical instrument that does the 'listening' and its an after event that we then hear the sound.

From a linear perspective, if you were standing right in front of that poor forever falling tree, and heard the thumppp, it would still be "an after event" when you hear the sound.

Or are you saying that the tree is once again falling?

Please allow me to repost a previous response, for your listening pleasure! *__-

If a tree falls in the forest, and there are none to hear (goes the old Zen koan), does it make a sound?

~~~ sound
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 ft. (331 m) per second at sea level.

^^^^^^^^^^^
According to the first definition, no.
There would be no "organs of hearing" (assuming that there are no other "organs of hearing" around; squirrels, warthogs, bluebirds of happiness, faeries, whatever...) present.

And no, according to the second definition;
If there is no one perceiving those 'vibrations', they cannot/do not exist.
Only that which is perceived, exists!

^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, to 'know' that there is a forest and a tree, it (they) must be perceived.
It is not possible that there can be Perspectives perceiving the existence of the tree, and that it falls, without being there to perceive accompanying sounds, if any.
A tree cannot fall in the forest unless one (a Conscious Perspective) is there to perceive the forest and the trees, and the falling...!
The very question is, from that Perspective, in error.

Notvacka wrote:

..nameless.. wrote:If all existence is perceived, subjectively, what can 'objective' be?

Indeed. And again, I get the feeling that we are arguing from the same side here. :) Let me quote myself from another topic (regarding newly discovered writings by Wittgenstein):

Notvacka wrote:...What other kind of significance is there to be had? Without consciousness, the universe would mean nothing to itself. If it would still exist, that "existence" could not be verified, and, essentially, it would be meaningless. You might as well say that it would not exist at all... No evidence in support possible.
...It's like Schrödinger's cat. The scientists can't know if the cat is alive or dead in the box, but the cat would know... Obviously an 'observer' need not be human!
...My point is that what matters is what is perceived; perception is more important than actuality. He didn't understand that 'perception' IS actuality! If something "actually" is something other than we perceive it to be, it does not matter until our perception changes. We don't live in reality, but in a perception of something that might be reality... We are Reality, that bit that can be perceived by 'our' Perspective, and beyond... he was homing in on it, though

You can find the entire discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7663 It's quite amusing.

Will do.

..nameless.. wrote:And there is no 'out there'! There is Here! and what we perceive. Whatever 'is', is perceived by some Perspective.

I tend to agree. But this is a minority view. Most people believe that the universe is "out there" existing independently from any perception.

I never thought mediocrity a point of pride.
Minority or majority views never had meaning to me. I have my own 'eyes'. When the Wright bro's invented the popsicle, they were a 'minority' of two (and a few supporters), like Pasteur and Einstein and DaVinci... All 'minorities' of One!
And as the light shined in the darkness of the mediocre minds, more and more believed in popsicles!
And ate them!
The end!

..nameless.. wrote:A 'belief' is a 'thought' with 'feelings' . If a belief is

But it's a mistake to think that you can separate your thoughts from your feelings.

A 'mistake'? Why? How?
All feelings ARE thoughts, not all thoughts are feelings.
I perceive thoughts, at times, with no feelings attached. So do you.

a thought with feelings, then all your thoughts are beliefs,

That is a non-sequitur fallacy, it does not follow.
Some thoughts have feelings.
Some thoughts do not.
And feelings differ; bliss (not a 'belief'), sorrow, joy... prideful self-riteousness and acceptance of the 'thought' as a seperate Truth! Mine! And willing to defend at whatever cost is commensurate with the strength (emotional attachment) of that 'belief'.

since you can't stop feeling. Nor can you stop thinking.

I don't agree with your premise.
And my personal experience disputes your 'all inclusive' remark about 'thinking'.

(Not paying attention to your thoughts and feelings, as in meditation, doesn't actually make them stop.)

Yes, thoughts still exist, but 'thoughts' are not features of the Reality that 'the Zen state of awareness' (specific Perspective) is perceiving at the moment!
They 'stop' if we stop perceiving them. Semantics...

..nameless.. wrote:The new updated all inclusive definition of 'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived"!

Using that definition, your view on belief makes some sense. :)

The Reality that I perceive is all inclusive! There is room for everyone's perceptions, all Perspectives are inherent features of the One Reality.

..nameless.. wrote:Discussing 'right' and 'wrong', morality, in the light of knowing that there is no 'free-will/choice' puts the light on the vanity and futility of 'morality'.

Yes. But there is quite a Quixotic nobility in doing something futile for its own sake, while knowing that it's futile, don't you think?

I'm not too sure how that is "being the change that we want to see"? Or uplifting humanity. Of course the story was quite uplifting, but as a metaphor. There isn't enough time in the world, and We have it all, to 'waste one's time tilting at windmills when we might be able to feed a homeless person! Or relieve someone's pain.
On the other hand, I find the Divine Fool a blessing!
Who is unworthy of love?

..nameless.. wrote:Philosophy is 'critical thought', religion is 'belief'. Holding a 'belief' is unnecessary to philosophy. Holding 'critical thought' is unnecessary to religion!

Unnecessary, perhaps. But religion can benefit from critical thought and philosophers have feelings too.

Dog bless you!
The Head alone has failed the West, and the Heart alone has failed the East!
This is Healed Man (enlightened)! The toxic schizophrenia of the rift between the Head and Heart is healing in Harmony, into One!

..nameless.. wrote:We know that there is no 'physical Universe' that can exist without being perceived.

No, we know no such thing. This is clearly a belief. How could you possibly know anything about something you can't perceive? :)

Let me rephrase; there is absolutely no evidence now or ever possible to use in refutation of my theory. All that we can KNOW is to perceive what is! There is no evidence of anything, ever, that exists without being perceived. Yes, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but the impossibility of any evidence (philosophical or scientific), ever, leaves that in 'belief-land'.

..nameless.. wrote:Please tell me how the sin of pride can be considered a virtue?

This is how: Knowing that what is, is, knowing that you have no actual free will or choice, you yet choose to do what is right.

A paradox is a sure sign that your train of thought has gone rattling off down a dead siding!
If you know that there is no free-will, you cannot 'believe' that you make choices. Yes, there are feelings of doing so, but they pass. That is where the Head and Heart will work in harmony, in peace.

You don't judge others, because you know that they have no choice but to be what they are and do what they do. Yet you take it upon yourself to hold yourself responsible, to a higher (and quite impossible) standard. That is what it means to take a truly moral standpoint, and i find it both prideful and virtuous. But maybe I'm just a romantic, like Don Quixote.

God bless us Holy Fools!
Thank you for a respectful and enjoyable conversation.
peace

blackbox wrote:

..nameless.. wrote:We know that there is no 'physical Universe' that can exist without being perceived.

Please elaborate. As I read this, you seem to be saying that the universe could not exist prior to some beings (like us) perceiving it to exist.

I am saying that existence, all inclusive, must be/is perceived. When perception is no more, existence is no more. All the perceiver is is a Conscious Perspective, it matters not a whit whether human or dog or bacteria or a rock...
The Universe is Consciousness, and perceives itself via (inherently limited and unique) Perspectives.

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

Reality is a synchrony of moments.
A moment is a unit of 'perception' (not time).
Existence is a moment of 'Self!' Knowledge (perception).

But how could such beings evolve -

Evolution is a real and true to a linear Perspective.
What is 'evolution, but Perspective, in a non-linear, holistic Reality where 'time' exists solely as 'thought', perceived Now! Always Now! And Now! *__-

and begin to perceive the universe -

The Universe and the perception of the Universe are inextricably One! The Conscious Universe perceives 'Self!'! every moment of existence, Now!

without there being a physical universe that existed without being perceived in which that evolution could occur?

The theory of evolution can only be true/exist in 'thoughts',where linearity and time exist.
How can evolution possibly exist in an otherwise timeless Universe? Or 'causality'? Or logic and meaning and values and 'the past' and 'the future'... All 'thoughts' are perceived Now!

On another level entirely, if you look close enough at the 'physical Universe', it resembles not anything so much as 'mind-stuff' says some quantum physicists and mystics. Nothing 'solid' in the batch ('solid' as commonly understood)! 'Information waves' that take a Perspective to perceive to be perceived as the Universe;
One Omni- 'Self!'!

..nameless.. wrote:When perception is no more, existence is no more. All the perceiver is is a Conscious Perspective, it matters not a whit whether human or dog or bacteria or a rock...

In what way is a rock conscious? A rock has relations... with the rock next door, with the planet it's resting upon, with you and me for that matter, and I guess we could call these relations a perspective. But why call this "conscious"? As far as we know, a rock might BE, say, 30 degrees c, but why should we think the rock is perceiving that temperature or is conscious of it or aware of it?

Or are you just assuming that existence - of anything - equals consciousness? If so, that assumption seems to redefine the term into something else entirely.

blackbox wrote:

..nameless.. wrote:When perception is no more, existence is no more. All the perceiver is is a Conscious Perspective, it matters not a whit whether human or dog or bacteria or a rock...

In what way is a rock conscious?

The Complete 'Set' is that;
"Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
That means that Consciousness is ineffable! Has no context for definition! Consciousness is the complete 'Set' and 'exclusive' definitions' are 'sub-sets', contextual!
Consciousness is, as it relates to humans, from certain Perspectives, related to 'movement', if we don't move we might not be perceived as 'Conscious'. By certain Perspectives (subsets of Consciousness).
Others might require the breathing of air, or reproduction, or must have polkadot skin! All are subsets of the Whole One all inclusive Reality, Consciousness, Truth, 'that' in which, all Being (Reality/Truth...) is 'grounded'!
Consciousness can only know itself by we Perspectives, all unique at every point in the Universe, Reality, 'Self!', God,... Consciousness!

but why should we think the rock is perceiving that temperature or is conscious of it or aware of it?

How much, do you suppose, can be perceived by every infinitesimal point of Conscious Perspective in just the few feet of 'space' surrounding you?
There are intinitesimal infinite perspectives within that space and how much of this space do you think that others are perceiving, at every 'level' of existence, micro through macro, that of which you are completely ignorant and not only ignorant, but coulsn't ever even imagin all that is going on under your nose...
Your nose?
Lets say that bacteria and microbes are valid individual 'Perspectives', that shouldn't be hard. They move, reproduce, whatever..
Do you realizr the the 'you' that you feed and bathe (whatever) and dress in the morning... consists of about 90% microbes and bacteria! Other little 'yous' thinking that they, too, are captains of this 'ship' of 'me'?
We are colonies of critters working together to survive.
That 'me' that exists as/in your 'thought/ego' (thought is ego, where all 'subject/object' distinctions are perceived), exists many times, all uniquely, at all .
You are one Perspective feeling that 'you' are in a 'here' looking 'out' at the world, personally identifying with the 'here' from which you feel you 'peek'! We feel all autonomous and alone in the big bad Universe!
There are others within that little package of you who feel the same way! Many others, and others who live in a real conscious world so alien to anything that you are capable of perceiving that you wouldn't, in a million years recognize yourself in his mirror!
The better tools that we invent for examining our Universe, the more that we find 'life' in the most unusual places.
Armageddon means a 'lifting of the veil'.
What we will find, is that all is Life! There is no where that is not Consciousness/Life! Every few days another scientific headline appears to validate what I'm saying! Consistently!
Life is Consciousness, no?
Seems a good definition to me. Consciousness, all inclusive!
What difference does knowing that make to me? I have a whole new understanding of;
"Do NOT do to 'others' what you don't want done to you!"
(EVERYTHING in the Universe, ALL INCLUSIVE, is 'others'!!!)

Or are you just assuming that existence - of anything - equals consciousness? If so, that assumption seems to redefine the term into something else entirely.

NO! I'm saying that the Existence of Everything is the Consciousness (of which we Perspectives, are 'sub-sets'. The Complete 'Set' is the sum-total of all 'sub-sets'. ALL!
All definitions of 'Consciousness' are subsets, never complete in themselves.

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

One Truth!
One Self!
=
1

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi)

..nameless.. wrote:How much, do you suppose, can be perceived by every infinitesimal point of Conscious Perspective in just the few feet of 'space' surrounding you?
There are intinitesimal infinite perspectives within that space and how much of this space do you think that others are perceiving, at every 'level' of existence, micro through macro, that of which you are completely ignorant and not only ignorant, but coulsn't ever even imagin all that is going on under your nose...
Your nose?
Lets say that bacteria and microbes are valid individual 'Perspectives', that shouldn't be hard. They move, reproduce, whatever..

It is true that I am completely ignorant of an infinite number of conscious perspectives you say exist in the few feet surrounding my body. And, apparently, I couldn't even imagine them. Fine, I have no reason to think they are there, and since I like my knowledge to be based on reason - something more than assumption - I'm happy with that. It's odd that you ask me about these tiny conscous blips, since you insist I cannot even imagine them. What, do you want me just to guess, what would be the point of that?

So, are you also completely ignorant on these matters? Are you incapable of imagining them too? If not, then how did you get that knowledge? If it was through the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, then why could I not investigate that and so come to understand?

You seem to assume that if anything... a bacterium, a rock, a grain of sand... moves, it is conscious. Which bit of copenhagenQM establishes that?

blackbox wrote:It's odd that you ask me about these tiny conscous blips, since you insist I cannot even imagine them. What, do you want me just to guess, what would be the point of that?

My point was that we are one of a myriad of Perspectives. We 'feel' as if we are 'so much', little ego gods, yet 'this' Perspective is as infinitesimally uniquely narrow a view as every other Perspective. We all see Reality. What is unimaginable is most of Reality, much less the entirety of Reality!

So, are you also completely ignorant on these matters? Are you incapable of imagining them too?

Can a microbe imagine the Brandenburg Concerto?
Perhaps, but i doubt it.

If not, then how did you get that knowledge? If it was through the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, then why could I not investigate that and so come to understand?

'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived".
What I offer is that which i perceive.
Many paths of inquiry (quantum physics to mysticism to martial arts to artistic expression, ad nauseum, have I trod these years, many 'practices' sincerely practiced . I feel uncomfortable talking about myself, but, I can always give reference to where I found what. It is all quite logically consistent!
Bottom line?
All roads do truly lead to Rome!
It all comes together!
All the puzzle pieces, all the 'dots' that we love to connect,... the questions of the one path will be answered on another!

“Genuinely successful theories interconnect information from previously disparate areas of experience,” said Adolf Grünbaum, the Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh.

And this I have done.
There are no secrets. It's all available, the 'dues' paid. If you have specific questions regarding 'background research', I feel that might be better kept on a PM basis rather than bore everyone.
I come with the 'punchline', the 'joke' takes awhile, if you care to repeat it... or you can take the 'punchline' and find your own 'joke'...

You seem to assume that if anything... a bacterium, a rock, a grain of sand... moves, it is conscious. Which bit of copenhagenQM establishes that?

I was simply using 'movement' as an illustration of an exclusive definition of 'Life'.
'Copenhagen' finds that Consciousness is the 'ground' of anything and everything of which existence/Reality consists; the 'ground' of rocks and me and us and galaxies... Kind of like the ocean, of which all fish are features. They might 'feel' autonomous, perhaps, but the 'feeling' (thought) doesn't alter the 'Truth' that fish and water and salt and sea-weed and sunken ships and Davy Jones' locker and the beer cans that line the floor and sea-monsters... all are One Body!
I see no reason to 'assume' that Consciousness is 'exclusive' any more than Truth or Reality is 'exclusive'!
Do you not find it interesting that after all these years, there has never been a 'definitive' (all inclusive, accounts for all phenomena, all observations, all Perspectives) definition of 'Consciousness'?
They do struggle so, though!
But that's fine, for the sincere, all roads truly are as One!
Swordsmanship, ikebana or calligraphy, all 'find' 'Self!'! All lead to (Are) the One Reality, the One Consciousness ('ground' of all 'roads'!)!

Hi everybody!

I recently watched this fascinating talk by philosopher Mary Warnock on morality in contemporary societies.

http://iai.tv/video/mary-warnock-rescuing-morality

I think it's a good contribution to the reflection,

Emily.

This is from your first post outlining your theory.

If we disagree, we can't both be right, but we can both be wrong

However, are you sure this is true? I can think of a hypothetical example where two people can disagree but both be right: suppost there are 2 people stood opposite each other. They both claim that 'the person opposite me is lying'. So: observer A begins by assuming person1 is telling the truth, then person1 tells the truth while person2 is lying. However, if observer B comes along and assumes person2 is telling the truth, then person2 tells the truth while person1 is lying. Both observers have reached 'right' answers (insofar as they are logical answers) but they disagree. What do you think of this?

In general, your theory seems well founded, and bears some similarities I think to Preference Utilitarianism. However, have you considered Hume's Is-Ought problem? Why is your theory Good? Or are you merely outlining the best way for all humans to reach a good compromise on this Earth?