Reality as Self-Contained

How does that answer the question?
Are rocks conscious, or do they not exist?
Whether you think individual consciousness gives a platform or not is irrelevant to the question asked.

Again, your answer simply does not address the question.

Or here.
There's certainly a trend with your responses though: repetitively unhelpful.

Once again, how is any of this related to the question I asked?
I'm not saying it isn't - I just don't see a link, and you repeating the same (what is tantamount to) gibberish is not helpful.

And this answers what, exactly?
At best you merely raise a question of your own with no answer to my own.
Helpful?
No.

:yawn:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:wallbang:

Yes!
I see it now!
Thank you for opening my eyes!

It is simple that you have nothing constructive to add to someone seeking to understand another's position.
As a scientist, with a PhD, and working underground for as many hours as you do, I'd have thought it obvious, for someone of your undoubted intellect... oh, wait... maybe the simple thing is to revise that assessment.
After all, you have done nothing to suggest your claims in that regard are of any value whatsoever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

unbelievably hilarious.
what a joke this is.
here's a thought,
instead of ranting and raving try to think for once.
amusing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

" Whether you think individual consciousness gives a platform or not is irrelevant to the question asked. "
amusing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

platform, as in standard operating system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But rather than provide any actual clarification you just imply superiority and laugh at those who can't understand the meaning and/or relevance of your responses.
Thanks for your valued input.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

instead of ranting and raving try to think for once.
also,
you're welcome.

 

There's no rant nor rave.
Just a desire to see questions answered in a comprehensible manner.
Which you are not providing.
Care to actually do so?

 

try to think for once.
it's usually low level mentalities that say such things as,
" comprehensible manner "

i hardly, almost never, have any kind of problems understanding what an individual or such has written or stated, no matter how they wrote or talked.
but i also actually understand language

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, aren't you the intelligent one, as the PhD you shout about will undoubtedly testify to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You'll note, however, that rather than actually try to explain your posts - that others and I have explicitly stated are incomprehensible to them - you continually attempt to mock those you see as less intelligent.

Pity your self-proclaimed intelligence doesn't stop you from being an arrogant narcissist.

So, are you going to explain your answers in a comprehensible manner?
Currently I find them to be gibberish and not actually answering the questions I posed to Cyperium.
Maybe your intelligence will stoop to responding in a manner others can actually understand?
But somehow I doubt you are capable of such decency.

 

ok genius,
tell me what words you are having problems with.
because this is the exact reason why you can not comprehend my simple explanations.
what do you want, actual higher levels of science terms and such,
but obviously it would be worse, because its obvious you can not even understand something simple.

so please,
show me the words you are having trouble with.

 

Rocks exist, rocks aren't conscious, and the existence of rocks isn't dependent on an external sentient being being aware of them.

(I'm most definitely not an adherent of 'to be is to be perceived'.)

Yes.

Leaving aside the question of 'knowability by what/whom?' and 'knowability in fact or in principle?', I'll say that existence and knowability are two overlapping sets. Many things belong to both sets and both exist and are knowable. There may also be existent objects that aren't knowable by any possible cognizer, whether because of physical circumstance, the nature of the object, or some other unknown reason. And conceivably there may be knowable non-existent objects as well, such as ideal geometrical figures such as perfect circles.

Krash posted the same words in response to each of Baldeee's questions above.

Ok. But what about objects and events that have never been observed by any sentient observer and never will be? Geological phenomena on some extrasolar planet orbiting a distant star for instance.

If we send a space ship to one of those places, are we discovering what's already there... or creating something that didn't exist previous to a sentient being first showing up (complete with phony evidence of a geological past that never actually happened?

 

please,
show me the words you are having trouble with.

 

Quantum physics forever shattered the idea of there being an objectively existing world - it has proven that there is no such thing! It is ironic that physics, long considered the most "objective" of all the sciences, in pursuing its dedicated quest to understand the deep nature of the material universe, has dispelled the very notion of an objective universe. According to quantum theory, the idea of a world independent of our observation is a meaningless statement; it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about an objective universe as if it exists separate from our observation of it. Our perception of the universe is a part of the universe happening through us that has an instantaneous effect on the universe we are observing. It makes no sense to think of ourselves as a self-enclosed, encapsulated, independent agent existing separate from the universe. Quantum theory has opened up the door to a profoundly new vision of the cosmos, where the observer, the observed and the act of observation are inseparably united.

http://realitysandwich.com/217537/the-physics-of-dreaming-part-1/

Reality is self-contained. I.e., reality is within itself.

 

Your narcissism is tiring and pathetic.

It's not the words, despite your insistence to the contrary.
It is the relevance of your words to the questions raised.

If I ask why the sun rises in the East and you respond with "because it's Tuesday", you'll note how the words you respond with are not the issue.
It might be that your answer is wholly relevant.
But I (and others) can not fathom it.
And your insulting chocolate teacup attitude is unwarranted.

 

I'd agree.
I accept that our observation of the universe can/does alter reality in some way... in that we do have an observer effect... and that without our presence the "reality" would be different.
And in that way we are part and parcel of reality rather than merely an observer.
But that is a rather trivial matter, since it is true of any observer (conscious or otherwise, from a QM point of view) within the universe.

I'm always reminded of Donald Rumsfeld's wise words:
"Reports that say there's -- that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

With regard the "knowable non-existent objects" - do these not exist in the mind?
What is a perfect circle other than a concept?
The concept is knowable and exists (as a concept).

Indeed he did.
Without actually answering any of the questions comprehensibly.

This is why I'd draw a distinction between a practical non-existent (i.e. it is for all practical purposes consistent with non-existence) and actual non-existence.

If we are in a computer simulation, as is oft posited, then perhaps the frame-rate of the universe drops too low if they create and render everything up front, instead of only rendering what we can actually perceive/observe at that time etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

tell me what words you are having problems with.
because this is the exact reason why you can not comprehend my simple explanations.

 

no i would tell you the exact answer,
" because of earths rotation. "

again the problem is, words are not understood.
it's that simple.
you can attempt to claim what ever you want for reasons why.

it's because of this example.
a elementary student is trying to do 12th grade studies.
without knowing or understanding anything in between.
it's that simple.

 

That has some plausibility on the quantum scale, I guess. In order to observe something, one has to physically interact with it. And on the small scale particularly, interacting with something makes things different from how they would have been if the interaction hadn't occurred. But having said that, I'm not convinced that human beings looking at the night sky has any significant effect on making the rest of the universe become whatever it is. Nor am I convinced that 'consciousness' in some metaphysical sense has anything to do with it.

Sure, I agree with that. Of course I take a rather physicalist-functionalist approach to mind. Our brains are certainly part and parcel of physical reality and our consciousness and cognition seem to me to be actions that our brains perform. So yeah, I don't think of us as disembodied spiritual observers looking at physical reality from outside, so to speak. I prefer to think of us as one tiny part of what physical reality is doing at the moment.

I don't really know what to make of mathematical objects.

They really do seem to have objective discoverable properties, such as the various facts about triangles that beginning geometry students prove. Anybody who entertains a triangle concept (a plane Euclidean triangle anyway) is going to find that the same facts about triangles are true of the triangle that they are thinking about.

I guess that I'm kind of inclined towards a Platonic account of mathematical objects sometimes.

There certainly seems to be a difference between 'unknown to sentient beings' and 'nonexistent'. If there wasn't any distinction, the whole idea of discovery become very problematic.

I'm reminded of the creationists who insist that the Earth is really only 4000 years old, but created with all of the geological and fossil evidences of billions of years of history that never really happened.

If consciousness creates reality by perceiving it, and if the Mars rovers represent the first sentient beings to ever set eyes on Mars (however indirect that representation is, another problem), then did Mars' surface just come into being when it was first perceived... and all of the evidences of liquid water having once flowed on Mars' surface a billion years ago (or whenever it was) are entirely bogus, like some creationists say fossils are here on Earth?

It's a lot simpler, and a lot more consistent with common-sense realism, to just say that Mars is very ancient and that it was there for billions of years before any sentient being happened along to check it out.

 

Your continued efforts to provide the requested clarification are duly noted.
As is your continued narcissism. :yawn:

 

We don't disagree.
It would be interesting to understand what the "other side" of this debate would say on the matter, if only it could be made comprehensible.
Unfortunately the only active proponent appears incapable of that.
Ah well.

 

the problem in my opinion is you think there's some kind of coded meaning to my words,
when in fact,
they mean exactly what they are supposed to mean.
it's that simple.
but instead of stopping and thinking, like i keep on insisting,
you want to blame your low level mind, the one having comprehension problems , on me.
typical.

so again, over and over,

please,
show me the words you are having trouble with.

 

Reality is perceived. This we know for a fact. So there exists a reality that is independent of perception. However, reality requires mind to be realized. This realization collapses the wave-function. What we do not know is the extent to which the relationship between reality and consciousness is mutual. But they are certainly in a mutual relationship.