Objective Reality

[Gustav]

another way to put that is to say, when we list the properties of something we are saying what is experienced. if there is no one there experiencing it that experiencing does not happen and it is hubris to say what is really happening.

experiences seem repetitious rather than novel
characterizing the phenomena apprehended as relatively persistent would be far more parsimonious that to say otherwise


hmm
what an elaborate deception (watchmaker)

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

parsimonious... hubris... sigh... <goes to look for dictionary>

 

[Gustav]

It's a bit more than that. If the concensus of opinion is that a roaring fire will not burn you if you stand in it then objective reality is going to disagree.

a bit more than what?
dissect the quote referenced and justify your response

 

[Gustav]

parsimonious... hubris... sigh... <goes to look for dictionary>

liar
i find you most profound and shit

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

<blush> I'm honored.

Sadly, my grasp of the english language is limited by my lack of education. Parsimonious can be translated into frugality and hubris speaks of egotism. Now that I know the words, maybe I can keep up.

 

[Gustav]

What about the probability that I did not exist until a moment ago? How would I get up if I didn't exist in the first place?

most excellent
a restriction of awareness to the immediate locale

the first nanoseconds
i find it ludicrous and illogical to assert not me

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Aaaah. Now this explains a lot.
You're right, I was misunderstanding your position. Given this clarification, I'd say that we're more in agreement than it appears. With you, I'll maintain that we each have our individually mediated representation of a particular quality, and while this may seem to indicate some 'objective' property, to grant that there is such, is untenable. You see, what you've done here is to introduce yet another level to the onion skin, to wit: that whatever one's individual perception of a quality may be, there is something 'beneath' that perception that is somehow inherent in the object in question. How very Kantian. Also, very problematic.
This is a sensible, but unprovable assumption.

Not all qualities are something inherent to an object. Color for example can just be free roaming photons bouncing off of an object and getting stretched in the process. A pattern that has arisen with the use of science is that we can see more and more difference as our visibility improves. This allows us toclearly define 'what' things are.

In your onion anology the only layer I am adding is that the information our senses are being stimulated with comes from external sources. Whether it's emitted from a particular source or is emitted from the interaction of multiple sources doesn't really matter. That information exists.

Again, you did (and can-) not.

I'll explain why the proof works. We can today observe that changes occured in Earths history long before human life (or life in general). Those changes are 100% consistent with known cosmic qualities. This directly validates that what is represented by the human concept of qualia existed long before human observers existed.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

most excellent
a restriction of awareness to the immediate locale

Who can perceive otherwise?

the first nanoseconds
i find it ludicrous and illogical to assert not me

Absurdity is the norm, however, and logic is relative. Do you assert you will be soon, as well, then? Where is the proof?

 

[Simon Anders]

experiences seem repetitious rather than novel
characterizing the phenomena apprehended as relatively persistent would be far more parsimonious that to say otherwise


hmm
what an elaborate deception (watchmaker)

It is the saying about what a thing is when no one ____s it I am talking about.
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent.

I am not saying that things wink in and out of existence. It is very hard to prove this is not true, but I am not saying it. I am saying that every word we have that is a property word
is no longer meaninful
if we are talking about something
no one is experiencing.

To speak about that things properties
is like saying

THE BOY BEING KISSED WAS ALONE.
THE PIE THAT WAS EATEN WHEN NO LIFE FORM WAS AROUND.
THE CHAIR WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE ROOM EMPTY OF CONSCIOUS ORGANISMS.

So I am not making a claim that there is nothing there. I am saying that our language CANNOT cover 'it'.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes, I understand that. I just think that's about as far as we can go. We can't talk about those differences because once we talk we are describing how differences are experienced, and even that word differences is a part of that.

Without knowing specific difference we certainly cannot discuss what they are as there would be no knowledge of them; however, we can certainly assert that differences exist whether or not there are people to perceive them. There is no need to go farther as that knowledge invalidates the OP
s assertion.

...
...
...
If all you are saying is that stuff goes on when we are not there, I tend to agree.
...
...
...

Sorry, didn't mean to cut the rest out but you hit the nail on the head and I wanted to emphasize it. Your quote above is my sole assertion for this thread and the OP asserts the exact opposite.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Not all qualities are something inherent to an object. Color for example can just be free roaming photons bouncing off of an object and getting stretched in the process. A pattern that has arisen with the use of science is that we can see more and more difference as our visibility improves. This allows us toclearly define 'what' things are.

Perception of minutiae is still perception. Perception of an electron microscope is relative perception, and any perception gained through the use thereof is less dependable because of the further layer of mechanical perception needed for your perception to perceive it.

In your onion anology the only layer I am adding is that the information our senses are being stimulated with comes from external sources. Whether it's emitted from a particular source or is emitted from the interaction of multiple sources doesn't really matter. That information exists.

That information MIGHT exist, you mean. Or do you assert that the brain does not enhance information perceived, or sometimes translate it incorrectly? Amputees would be an example. Shortly after the amputation, the absent limb is still sensed as if in place.

I'll explain why the proof works. We can today observe that changes occured in Earths history long before human life (or life in general). Those changes are 100% consistent with known cosmic qualities. This directly validates that what is represented by the human concept of qualia existed long before human observers existed.

"Known cosmic qualities"? How were these qualities found?

 

[Gustav]

Absurdity is the norm, however, and logic is relative. Do you assert you will be soon, as well, then? Where is the proof?

you miss the point
there remains that which makes the assertion

 

[Crunchy Cat]

another way to put that is to say, when we list the properties of something we are saying what is experienced. if there is no one there experiencing it that experiencing does not happen and it is hubris to say what is really happening.

Well maybe not hubris but in general I agree. The OP is asserting that there is nothing happening unless we're looking. That is what I am disagreeing with.

 

[Simon Anders]

Sorry, didn't mean to cut the rest out but you hit the nail on the head and I wanted to emphasize it. Your quote above is my sole assertion for this thread and the OP asserts the exact opposite.

I think my original problem with your response was that it seemed like you thought there were properties, which we could talk about, present when we are not around. In this context I agree with you that the OP goes to far, but when I look at your argument above, where you describe for Glaucon, light in a supposedly non-observer based language, I still disagree with you. It might help if you read my response to Gustav above. I come at it a different way, especially at the end.

Once we are gone, all those properties we talk about are gone, or at least, are no longer the same, because the observer is a part of those properties - and even that wording is misleading.

 

[Gustav]

i scanned thread for an occurrence of the term solipsism, and drew a blank

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What?

Without difference there cannot be cause or effect. We can observe today that cause and effect existed long before humans; therefore, difference (i.e. qualities) existed before humans (meaning human observation is not a requirement for their existence).

So we do agree, then. Neither the Observer nor reality exists.

lol no.

So, plants are healthy minded?

Plants don't have minds.

What about the probability that I did not exist until a moment ago?

Zero probability?

How would I get up if I didn't exist in the first place?

You wouldn't. You wouldn't think, you wouldn't feel, you wouldn't move, etc... because there would be no you.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I assert, then, that there is no real thing, because real things must be observed, else they are not real. I further assert that no observation is without flaw, thus all perception is suspect. Finally, I do not assert that things pop in and out of existence, rather, that nothing exists and everything exists at the same time.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Without difference there cannot be cause or effect. We can observe today that cause and effect existed long before humans; therefore, difference (i.e. qualities) existed before humans (meaning human observation is not a requirement for their existence).

I agree. Observation has nothing to do with it.

lol no.

Why not?

Plants don't have minds.

But they fit your stated requirements.

Zero probability?

How do you know, though?

You wouldn't. You wouldn't think, you wouldn't feel, you wouldn't move, etc... because there would be no you.

Sure you would, silly. If I come into existence with information in my mind, I have no way of proving otherwise. Do you?

 

[Simon Anders]

i scanned thread for an occurrence of the term solipsism, and drew a blank

there is an argument that phenomenalists are solipsistics, so good call.

But this would be plural solipsists, at least so far. Which is kinda funny. Sort of pagan.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

a bit more than what?
dissect the quote referenced and justify your response

A bit more than... "concensus of opinion". Our *models* of objective reality might be the product of a plurality of minds; however, if a model is incorrect then it's objective reality that tells us.