Objective Reality

Mr. Hamtastic said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything but the last part. How is adding a layer to achieve visibility not dependable? Electron microscopes can consistently visualize small things for humans in good detail.


Mr. Hamtastic said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean that external information just flat out exists. Human brains can also mis-translate, mis-synchronize, or generate sensory information (ex. dreams).

Mr. Hamtastic said:
"Known cosmic qualities"? How were these qualities found?
Click to expand...

Observation of them in the present. And we know those qualities existed before humans because in the present we can observe thier effects from the past.
 
Simon Anders said:
Crunchy Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

If by properties you are referring to the human concepts then I agree. The objective information that thoese properties describe continues to exist long after a person conceptualizing the properties is dead.
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I assert, then, that there is no real thing, because real things must be observed, else they are not real.
Click to expand...

1) Give your wife general anesthesia (she'll lose the ability to observe).
2) Drop her face down in a swimming pool.
3) Walk away and don't observe anything.

If you're right then nothing will happen.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
I further assert that no observation is without flaw, thus all perception is suspect.
Click to expand...

Must be hard to take a shower.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
Finally, I do not assert that things pop in and out of existence, rather, that nothing exists and everything exists at the same time.
Click to expand...

Feel free to point out a single instance of "nothing" (i.e. an absence of everything / anything).
 
ahh
most excellent
thats more like it

however, an out.......


regioncaptureex5.jpg


...individual sensory receptors all see red. some just a limited hue
nothing to it
just biological/aforemetioned whatnot
 
Crunchy Cat said:
I agree with everything but the last part. How is adding a layer to achieve visibility not dependable? Electron microscopes can consistently visualize small things for humans in good detail.

Because you now have two layers of relative perception. Your brain must translate the information that the electron microscope exists, and has to conclude it is functioning properly, then has to translate any information received from the instument. If there is a mispercerception at any point, the entire event fails.

I mean that external information just flat out exists. Human brains can also mis-translate, mis-synchronize, or generate sensory information (ex. dreams).

Ah. The fact is, however, that you have no evidence of the information outside of your relative perception.

Observation of them in the present. And we know those qualities existed before humans because in the present we can observe thier effects from the past.
Click to expand...

Allow me to give an example. You observe a red ball on the ground beside a wall. You observe a person put a blue ball on the wall, and observe the blue ball fall off of the wall. Did the red ball, thus, fall off of the wall? Could it have been placed beside the wall, instead?
 
the underlying reality of all things macro bends causality and fucks her up the ass.

thats what ben told me
in his very own words
 
Crunchy Cat said:
1) Give your wife general anesthesia (she'll lose the ability to observe).
2) Drop her face down in a swimming pool.
3) Walk away and don't observe anything.

If you're right then nothing will happen.

Almost. First, I must assume that my wife, the anesthesia, and the pool all exist.

Must be hard to take a shower.

:bugeye:

Feel free to point out a single instance of "nothing" (i.e. an absence of everything / anything).
Click to expand...

By my reasoning, right now. There is nothing being typed on the screen by me, for I and the keyboard and everything else do not exist. At the same time, however, it all exists, and that is what is perceived.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I agree. Observation has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Good. Because the OP stated otherwise.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because I exist and so does my environment.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
But they fit your stated requirements.
Click to expand...

No they don't. The question was concerned with the requirements for healty-mindedness. The constrains the subject to that which has a mind.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
How do you know, though?
Click to expand...

Because the energy required to remove and reinstantiate an eigenstate would leave a crater where you stand. Seeing as your internet connection is still working, I am 100% confident that hasn't happened.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
Sure you would, silly. If I come into existence with information in my mind, I have no way of proving otherwise. Do you?
Click to expand...

Sure you would, because if that information didn't match what actually did happen then you would know that you were "injected". Plus there would be a crater.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Good. Because the OP stated otherwise.

I denounce the op and all of it's heritage.

Because I exist and so does my environment.

In the absence of your perception, you have no idea what is going on.

No they don't. The question was concerned with the requirements for healty-mindedness. The constrains the subject to that which has a mind.

Define mind.

Because the energy required to remove and reinstantiate an eigenstate would leave a crater where you stand. Seeing as your internet connection is still working, I am 100% confident that hasn't happened.

You see all things as all or none, don't you? No more energy is required to generate something from nothing than it is to generate nothing from something. The two states operate inversely, and infinite energy and zero energy are used to do all such things.

Sure you would, because if that information didn't match what actually did happen then you would know that you were "injected". Plus there would be a crater.
Click to expand...

If everything exists and nothing exists at all times, then flickering from one to the other should cause no environmental alteration. Another way to put it: If I don't exist then not I exists in my absence.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Again! This thing is heavy, and I'm prone to paper cuts, you know. <waves dictionary at Simon>

solipsism-thinking only you exist

Untrue. I don't think I exist at all, except in your perception. :)
Click to expand...
I just thought you thought their was only one self: me. that makes you a solipsistic voice in my mind. I label the voices as a way to (feel like I) have control over them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top