Tree in a forest

[Bramble]

It is clear that we don't see the world 'as it is' (whatever that might mean). 

If we did what would we have to argue about?

Just wondering - if there was a God would he see the world as it is?

[Sriram]

No idea.  A God is presumably the creator of everything...so I guess He should be able to see the world 'as it is'.

IMO God, gods, deities are all like screen icons that we click on believing in certain things. But in the process, something happens within us that leads to development of Consciousness.  So, God, heaven, eternal life etc. are carrots that lead to something much more complex that we are unaware of.

[torridon]

No idea.  A God is presumably the creator of everything...so I guess He should be able to see the world 'as it is'.

If you accept the principle that nothing can exist but that it is observed, then that rules out the notion of a creator god.

[Outrider]

It's a pressure wave in air that it is measuring.

Yes, sound.

It's measuring the energy of the wave. I never claimed it was measuring any other kind of energy.

No, it's measuring the waves - from that you can calculate the energy involved.

Not sound then :-)

Yes, sound. That's what sound is.  It's literally the definition of sound.

Noun
sound (countable and uncountable, plural sounds)

1. A sensation perceived by the ear caused by the vibration of air or some other medium.
He turned when he heard the sound of footsteps behind him.  Nobody made a sound.
2. A vibration capable of causing such sensations.
3. (music) A distinctive style and sonority of a particular musician, orchestra etc
4. Noise without meaning; empty noise.
5. Earshot, distance within which a certain noise may be heard.
Stay within the sound of my voice.

I thought you said it doesn't measure energy. Now you are saying it does.

No, I'm saying that from the measurement of the sound it's possible to know with a reasonable degree of certainty what the energy involved is.

Nobody said that sound can exist in isolation to the pressure waves that cause it. They are saying that the act of perception is different to the pressure waves being perceived.

The implication of answering the original question with 'No' is that somehow sound only exists if there's someone there to hear it which would mean it was independent of the pressure waves that ARE sound.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, sound.

No, it's measuring the waves - from that you can calculate the energy involved.

Yes, sound. That's what sound is.  It's literally the definition of sound.
No, I'm saying that from the measurement of the sound it's possible to know with a reasonable degree of certainty what the energy involved is.

The implication of answering the original question with 'No' is that somehow sound only exists if there's someone there to hear it which would mean it was independent of the pressure waves that ARE sound.

O.

I am struggling with why people don't get that sound is both the subjective experience, and the intersubjective measure of the vibration, as you make clear. It seems to me that the whole question is based on that confusion, and therefore is not as deep as people think. I know that Sriram thinks that is significant because it makes clear that our experiences are subjective but I honestly don't think that that is very deep. It doesn't take much living to realise that our experiences are subjective, but also to realise that it doesn't feel like that.

[Sriram]

What we feel and how something affects our day to day life is not relevant here NS. That's not what philosophy & science (cosmology and QM) are about. I agree that we can continue with our normal life unconcerned about almost all scientific and philosophical knowledge. Many people do. 

But for those whom it may be of interest...its about understanding our true nature. Understanding that our body, mind and behavior is largely governed by tiny DNA molecules is important. Understanding that we are largely empty space is important. Understanding that the objective world is largely created in our brain is important.

People of science argue so much in favor of objective reality and against subjective experiences.....as though subjective experiences are all noise and clutter...and generally of no importance to objective reality. 

Well....it turns out that our objective reality is itself only a subjective experience. We don't ...and can't...know what objective reality actually is.  Isn't that a revelation?   

[Nearly Sane]

What we feel and how something affects our day to day life is not relevant here NS. That's not what philosophy & science (cosmology and QM) are about. I agree that we can continue with our normal life unconcerned about almost all scientific and philosophical knowledge. Many people do. 

But for those whom it may be of interest...its about understanding our true nature. Understanding that our body, mind and behavior is largely governed by tiny DNA molecules is important. Understanding that we are largely empty space is important. Understanding that the objective world is largely created in our brain is important.

People of science argue so much in favor of objective reality and against subjective experiences.....as though subjective experiences are all noise and clutter...and generally of no importance to objective reality. 

Well....it turns out that our objective reality is itself only a subjective experience. We don't ...and can't...know what objective reality actually is.  Isn't that a revelation?

No, it's not. That's why I used the phrase 'intersubjective'. And day to day life isn't removed from science or many aspects of philosophy. It's just that this particular question isn't that deep. It's based on the confusion between the experience we have and how we might describe it in intersubjective terms.

'People of science' is another of your frequent generalisations and you compound it with attributing a view to these 'people of science' that I don't think is correct, and it's precisely because we operate in day to day life as if we are experiencing an objective reality, and have no real choice but to do so, that causes you to misrepresent how people think. Science is methodologically naturalistic, it can't be anything else, but that doesn't mean 'people of science' are philosophically naturalistic.


The whole 'Tree in a forest' question to me makes me think of being a teenager and smoking dope, and finding depth where there isn't any.

[Sriram]

Well...maybe you just can't see the depth. What with the penchant for fending off arguments with one fallacy or the other...you just haven't gotten used to 'taking in' such stuff. 

Such realizations about the true nature of 'reality', can be life changing for some people. It can shift their world view and priorities overnight.

[Nearly Sane]

Well...maybe you just can't see the depth. What with the penchant for fending off arguments with one fallacy or the other...you just haven't gotten used to 'taking in' such stuff. 

Such realizations about the true nature of 'reality', can be life changing for some people. It can shift their world view and priorities overnight.

  Pointing out logical fallacies isn't 'fending off arguments', it's pointing out that the arguments are flawed. And it's precisely because I have taken in the whole idea that we can't know reality long long ago, that I see it as sophomoric to think that there is anything deep in it. It was fun to watch the dawn come up all those years ago, and take a draw on the spliff, and think how far out it was, man, that a tree might not make a sound if there was no one to hear it, but it's really not deep.

[Sriram]

As I said..its about attitude. Information is different from realization.  Yes...most people are informed about such matters...but once realization sets in, the illusion breaks and people can change dramatically.

[Bramble]

Just come across this interview with neuroscientist Donald Hoffman which seems very apt here: https://aeon.co/videos/its-impossible-to-see-the-world-as-it-is-argues-a-cognitive-neuroscientist

It's probably not 'deep' enough for some but I found it extremely interesting, no doubt because I'm just shallow.

Sriram will enjoy it, I think.

"Conscious experiences are the fundamental furniture of the universe - not space-time and atoms and quarks and so forth..."

[Nearly Sane]

As I said..its about attitude. Information is different from realization.  Yes...most people are informed about such matters...but once realization sets in, the illusion breaks and people can change dramatically.

You have the illusion that if someone disagrees with you on this that they haven't had your 'realisation'. Whereas I've had it, smoked it, poked it, turned into a bowl of petunias and 'realized' that it's just a ride.

[Nearly Sane]

Just come across this interview with neuroscientist Donald Hoffman which seems very apt here: https://aeon.co/videos/its-impossible-to-see-the-world-as-it-is-argues-a-cognitive-neuroscientist

It's probably not 'deep' enough for some but I found it extremely interesting, no doubt because I'm just shallow.

Sriram will enjoy it, I think.

"Conscious experiences are the fundamental furniture of the universe - not space-time and atoms and quarks and so forth..."

Hoffman is doing something very different to Sriram though which is looking at it entirely scientifically, and in that sense it's hugely interesting and I agree with most of ideas. Incidentally if you like his stuff - here's a link to his homepage

http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/

[Outrider]

What we feel and how something affects our day to day life is not relevant here NS.

Except inasmuch as it's the crux of whether or not you think the initial question is significant.

But for those whom it may be of interest...its about understanding our true nature. Understanding that our body, mind and behavior is largely governed by tiny DNA molecules is important. Understanding that we are largely empty space is important. Understanding that the objective world is largely created in our brain is important.

You are conflating the objective world (a thing independent of us, hence 'objective') and our understanding of that objective world, which is the impression of it we hold in our brains.  The objective world is in no way whatsoever created in our brains, but our subjective understanding of it is created - and hopefully refined - there.

People of science argue so much in favor of objective reality and against subjective experiences.....as though subjective experiences are all noise and clutter...and generally of no importance to objective reality.

On the contrary, there are entire fields of science looking at exactly that subjectivity, perceptional biases, how the scale at which we operate impinges on our understanding of physics at various scales. 

Well....it turns out that our objective reality is itself only a subjective experience. We don't ...and can't...know what objective reality actually is.  Isn't that a revelation?

You've failed to understand, it appears. There is no 'our' objective reality - if there were, it wouldn't be objective, it would be dependent upon us.  There is an objective reality, there are a range of subjective experiences of that objective reality with various degrees of justification for their interpretations.  We don't know what objective reality actually is isn't a revelation; that we can't possibly know is a claim I think is hard to justify - how do we know that our understanding will not continue to improve over time?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

You've failed to understand, it appears. There is no 'our' objective reality - if there were, it wouldn't be objective, it would be dependent upon us.  There is an objective reality, there are a range of subjective experiences of that objective reality with various degrees of justification for their interpretations.  We don't know what objective reality actually is isn't a revelation; that we can't possibly know is a claim I think is hard to justify - how do we know that our understanding will not continue to improve over time?

O.

I don't think that it matters that our understanding will improve, we will always in some sense remain in the matrix, and therefore be unable to step out of our built in subjectivity. All we can have is intersubjectivity.

Of course, alternatively, if we solve we either everything will go pouf and disappear, or else god will appear and give us our reward - we just need our Neo.

[Sriram]

Just come across this interview with neuroscientist Donald Hoffman which seems very apt here: https://aeon.co/videos/its-impossible-to-see-the-world-as-it-is-argues-a-cognitive-neuroscientist

It's probably not 'deep' enough for some but I found it extremely interesting, no doubt because I'm just shallow.

Sriram will enjoy it, I think.

"Conscious experiences are the fundamental furniture of the universe - not space-time and atoms and quarks and so forth..."

You haven't seen my earlier thread then.....

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16814.0

Try this also.....

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What with the penchant for fending off arguments with one fallacy or the other...you just haven't gotten used to 'taking in' such stuff.

No-one “fends off arguments with one fallacy or the other”. What they actually do is falsify them by identifying where your arguments are wrong. Your posts here are full of fallacious arguments, and so are the blogs you link to. This means that those arguments can safely be dismissed. If ever you did manage to justify your beliefs with an argument that wasn’t false, then (but only then) would rational people take your beliefs seriously. So far at least however you show no sign of being able to do so.

[jeremyp]

The implication of answering the original question with 'No' is that somehow sound only exists if there's someone there to hear it which would mean it was independent of the pressure waves that ARE sound.

O.

You've got it backwards. You first have to define what you mean by the word "sound". That determines how you answer the tree question. If you decide that sound is the subjective experience that humans (and perhaps some other living organisms) have on detecting air pressure waves, you can answer no to the question. If you define sound as the pressure waves themselves, you must answer yes to the question.

Personally, I don't really care which definition you use as long as you are clear about it up front and as long as you don't summarily dismiss other view points that have some validity.

[Gordon]

If sound is defined as the subjective auditory experience of these air pressure waves then air pressure waves can be viewed as having the  potential for sound provided they occur at frequencies humans can hear, and that there are some humans around, and of course it would be different for dogs given they can hear higher frequencies than humans.

This is hardly profound stuff.

[Nearly Sane]

You've got it backwards. You first have to define what you mean by the word "sound". That determines how you answer the tree question. If you decide that sound is the subjective experience that humans (and perhaps some other living organisms) have on detecting air pressure waves, you can answer no to the question. If you define sound as the pressure waves themselves, you must answer yes to the question.

Personally, I don't really care which definition you use as long as you are clear about it up front and as long as you don't summarily dismiss other view points that have some validity.

It doesn't really matter. The difference is simply about viewpoint. That both are reasonable doesn't give the question any more depth.

[Sriram]

My goodness...!   You guys are going on and on about words and definitions.     Your philosophical limitations are showing...!!  You have had too much of microscopic science, guys. Take a breather.

Don't you realize that if all that we perceive as the objective world is just a subjective experience....then all that you people keep on and on about as Laws of Nature, Emergent Property, Random Variations, Determinism etc.etc. are just perceived realities  and not necessarily absolute in themselves??!!

I agree that what we believe about the world  works well enough in our day to day life, but that again is only like the laws and realities within a VR game. Not real in itself...!  Its all in the mind!

As they say...Consciousness is fundamental.

[Stranger]

My goodness...!   You guys are going on and on about words and definitions. 

Wow - you said something I actually agree with. Arguing about the meaning of the word is trivial - but then so is the tree in the forest example.

Your philosophical limitations are showing...!!

But then a shedload of irony. At the heart of philosophy is sound reasoning and your frequent use of fallacies shows that you really aren't very good at it.

You have had too much of microscopic science, guys. Take a breather.

And substitute silly put-downs instead...

Don't you realize that if all that we perceive as the objective world is just a subjective experience....then all that you people keep on and on about as Laws of Nature, Emergent Property, Random Variations, Determinism etc.etc. are just perceived realities  and not necessarily absolute in themselves??!!

This is trivially true but not useful. That's why science concentrates on intersubjective verification. We are faced with a shared and inescapable subjective experience that corresponds to what we generally call the 'real' or 'objective' world.

I agree that what we believe about the world  works well enough in our day to day life, but that again is only like the laws and realities within a VR game. Not real in itself...!  Its all in the mind!

There is our day-to-day experiences of the world, which we know through science to be somewhat inaccurate and very incomplete, then there is the intersubjectively verifiable world, as revealed through science. Philosophically we cannot say that the later is real but if it isn't, it might as well be. Even if it's "all in the mind", if you jump off a tall building you'll still fall to the ground.

As they say...Consciousness is fundamental.

Which doesn't follow at all.

[Nearly Sane]

Wow - you said something I actually agree with. Arguing about the meaning of the word is trivial - but then so is the tree in the forest example.

But then a shedload of irony. At the heart of philosophy is sound reasoning and your frequent use of fallacies shows that you really aren't very good at it.

And substitute silly put-downs instead...

This is trivially true but not useful. That's why science concentrates on intersubjective verification. We are faced with a shared and inescapable subjective experience that corresponds to what we generally call the 'real' or 'objective' world.

There is our day-to-day experiences of the world, which we know through science to be somewhat inaccurate and very incomplete, then there is the intersubjectively verifiable world, as revealed through science. Philosophically we cannot say that the later is real but if it isn't, it might as well be. Even if it's "all in the mind", if you jump off a tall building you'll still fall to the ground.

Which doesn't follow at all.

Agree - it's just something we are forced to live with. It's not profound, it's just a very naughty boy.

[Outrider]

My goodness...!   You guys are going on and on about words and definitions.     Your philosophical limitations are showing...!!  You have had too much of microscopic science, guys. Take a breather.

You've asked a question that relies on the possibility that single word might have two related but distinct meanings - of course there's a discussion of language.  As to whether that constitutes a philosophical limitation - my eldest has just finished three years of philosophy and ethics at Chichester, and not surprisingly an awful lot of that is about being sure you've adequately defined your terms.

Don't you realize that if all that we perceive as the objective world is just a subjective experience....then all that you people keep on and on about as Laws of Nature, Emergent Property, Random Variations, Determinism etc.etc. are just perceived realities  and not necessarily absolute in themselves??!!

No. Don't you realise that accepting we have a subjective experience of something doesn't mean that a) the reality we are experiencing is itself objective or that b) in at least some instances our subjective understanding can be (and possibly has been) refined to be an accurate understanding of the objective reality.

I agree that what we believe about the world  works well enough in our day to day life, but that again is only like the laws and realities within a VR game. Not real in itself...!  Its all in the mind!

I don't think you only exist in my mind, if only because I'm not sure I could come up with some of this stuff

As they say...Consciousness is fundamental.

Which they, because I think they're wrong.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

My goodness...!   You guys are going on and on about words and definitions.

Yes, these things are basic because without agreed meanings people like you can slip in any definitions they like and hope to get away with it. 
 

Your philosophical limitations are showing...!!

If you think that to be the case then don’t just assert it but explain where you think those “limitations’ are. So far you seem to mean something like “not agreeing with my unqualified assertions” which isn’t even a limitation on reasoning – it’s no reasoning at all. 

You have had too much of microscopic science, guys. Take a breather.

An ill-informed ad hom you try a lot when you have no arguments to make. Why bother?

Don't you realize that if all that we perceive as the objective world is just a subjective experience....then all that you people keep on and on about as Laws of Nature, Emergent Property, Random Variations, Determinism etc.etc. are just perceived realities  and not necessarily absolute in themselves??!!

And then you follow with a straw man fallacy. No-one argues for absolute anything. This has been explained to you many times, so why just repeat the same stupidity over and over again?

I agree that what we believe about the world  works well enough in our day to day life, but that again is only like the laws and realities within a VR game. Not real in itself...!  Its all in the mind!

There’s reasonable evidence to suggest that there is in fact an “out there” world, and moreover that our senses and mental processes to some degree at least map to that world. If you want to go full brain in a vat that’s up to you, but what would you do with that even if it was true?

As they say...Consciousness is fundamental.

Some people may say that but, so far at least, there’s nor evidence to support the conjecture. So?