Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective reality is false

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind. All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 4:56:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind. All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

Your grasp of the facts is impressive, but I disagree - initially, for two reasons:
First, I negotiate reality based on the evidence of the senses - such that, it could not be otherwise than it appears. I do not fall in holes I can't see! Secondly, we can discuss the qualities of art, the colour, texture, form, symbolism and so on - based upon what you and I both see. Any such discussion is bound to reveal that our experience is the same, and cannot be an illusion. I don't deny any of these facts - but an objective reality exists, even if we don't perceive it... objectively.
Emgaol
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 8:04:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind.
If you truly believe this, then why are you trying to convince us? Surely we are nothing more than virtual reality entities in your mind. Clearly you are just trying to convince yourself. Well, worry no more, you have achieved it, you are convinced.

All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.
According to your "reasoning", it's not we who have faulty reasoning, it's your virtual reality imaginings of us that has faulty reasoning.

Why do you object to physics? Is it because your knowledge and understanding of physics is atrocious (as in non-existent)?

Oh, and if I say something which you don't like, you must blame yourself because I don't really exist. I'm just a figment of your virtual reality. These words aren't really on your computer, just on the virtual reality in your mind.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 10:48:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 8:04:43 AM, Emgaol wrote:
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind.
If you truly believe this, then why are you trying to convince us? Surely we are nothing more than virtual reality entities in your mind. Clearly you are just trying to convince yourself. Well, worry no more, you have achieved it, you are convinced.

All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.
According to your "reasoning", it's not we who have faulty reasoning, it's your virtual reality imaginings of us that has faulty reasoning.

Why do you object to physics? Is it because your knowledge and understanding of physics is atrocious (as in non-existent)?

Oh, and if I say something which you don't like, you must blame yourself because I don't really exist. I'm just a figment of your virtual reality. These words aren't really on your computer, just on the virtual reality in your mind.

Yes. Could you possibly imagine me taller, wealthier and better endowed please!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 6:04:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:56:09 AM, autocorrect wrote:

Your grasp of the facts is impressive, but I disagree - initially, for two reasons:

Thank you.

First, I negotiate reality based on the evidence of the senses - such that, it could not be otherwise than it appears. I do not fall in holes I can't see!

You give me an image of playing a video game with the television turned off. The character will fall down a hole that you were unable to avoid without seeing it. I think you are operating under the assumption that I mean to say that objective reality exists, but your subjective interpretation of it is flawed. Perhaps as I sit here there are ghosts in other dimensions hovering about, and things I cannot experience all around me but not detectable by my senses. I assure you this is not what my message is.

I am saying that your consciousness creates reality. There wouldn't be any need for holes (for example) that you could not see, because the only reality that exists is what you've created.

Secondly, we can discuss the qualities of art, the colour, texture, form, symbolism and so on - based upon what you and I both see. Any such discussion is bound to reveal that our experience is the same, and cannot be an illusion. I don't deny any of these facts - but an objective reality exists, even if we don't perceive it... objectively.

The characters in "The Matrix" could make the same argument in error; it would require only that a technologically-advanced person plug in 5 inputs to your brain and started to feed it data. Instead of a technological prison, I am proposing that consciousness itself has created reality - in essence, you are observing yourself when you look at material things.

Your point is definitely worth considering however, that the fact that there are other people makes it more complicated (unless I am willing to invoke full-on solipsism, which I am not). I would imagine two people tripping on acid; they wouldn't necessarily experience the same trip and wouldn't be able to agree on what is happening, therefore they cannot claim objectivity about their experiences. But consider the possibility that individualism is false for a moment. We are separate people, but not completely separate all the way down to the level of consciousness (i.e., consciousness being the most fundamental aspect of the material world instead of classically-held beliefs of matter and energy). We are made of the same consciousness, even if our minds and thoughts are separate. It would be similar to touching your left hand with your right hand; are both of your hands the same thing or are they separate? They are part of the same individual, but you cannot deny that they have separate identities.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2016 6:07:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/6/2016 8:04:43 AM, Emgaol wrote:

If you truly believe this, then why are you trying to convince us? Surely we are nothing more than virtual reality entities in your mind. Clearly you are just trying to convince yourself. Well, worry no more, you have achieved it, you are convinced.

I am not denying your existence. I am aware of the arrogance of that claim and if that's how I truly felt I wouldn't bother prodding you with it.

All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

According to your "reasoning", it's not we who have faulty reasoning, it's your virtual reality imaginings of us that has faulty reasoning.

Why do you object to physics? Is it because your knowledge and understanding of physics is atrocious (as in non-existent)?

I don't object to physics, I am challenging the meta-paradigm that modern physics rests on: consciousness is derived from matter. I would instead say that matter is derived from consciousness.

Oh, and if I say something which you don't like, you must blame yourself because I don't really exist. I'm just a figment of your virtual reality. These words aren't really on your computer, just on the virtual reality in your mind.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
n7
Posts: 1,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 7:39:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind. All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

Just because senses appear to be subjective doesn't entail reality is no more than our senses. We may be observing and interpreting sense data which would fit with your justifications, but still have an objective reality.

Furthermore, if everything is a subjective VR, then what am I observing when I am seeing something? And if things like color doesn't exist objectively, then what is actually red or blue when we observe something?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 3:55:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
So your proof that objective reality doesn't exist is that our perceptions of it are distorted. In other words, objective reality doesn't exist because it exists differently than how we perceive it. One of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 3:59:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I mean honestly, the argument depends on there being an objective reality, otherwise you couldn't say our perceptions are distorted because there would be nothing for us to "distort".
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 11:09:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The existence of objective reality provides strong explanatory power to the reason our senses make such interpretations. A preexisting dataset provides a strong interpretation for why our senses work the way they work.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:10:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind. All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

We have twenty senses for example pain, hunger, pulmonary stretch receptors, chemoreceptors, proprioception are some of the less well known senses that you appear ignorant of.

Our senses might well be misleading us. If this is the case then we know nothing at all and any further debate is meaningless and pointless. Ideas of subjective and objective have no meaning if we cannot be sure that we actually exist. "I think therefore I am" the famous plagiarist Descartes said is probably the most useless statement ever.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 5:24:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.

Colors are qualia, which is a feature of experience, but it is an experience of something, and that certainly doesn't make the thing experienced unreal or render the experienced thing itself subjective.

How do you know objects are not blue yellow or red? On what basis do you assert that color is not a feature of external reality?

2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective!

Yep, per the definition of objective that would be an objective fact, the floor and the walls exist outside of the mind. The second definition of objective in the Free Dictionary is: "b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts."

Why do you think the act of observation makes the thing observed subjective and unreal?

Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

I don't understand why you declare the attributes of matter to be unreal and why you consider everything we have learned about matter to lack "fundamental meaning", what does that mean and why do you assert it? It doesn't logically follow that just because knowledge occurs in the mind and the attributes of what we perceive occur in the mind, that the things we perceive and know are not real .

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

What does" experience these objects directly" even mean? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says there are certain complementary pairs of values that cannot be determined relative to each other, there are pairs of measurements that can't simultaneously be known precisely, why would that mean that matter isn"t really there?

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind.

Sounds like you are declaring that you are an Idealist, is that the point?

All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

You seem to be making up new definitions of objective and subjective; the first definitions in the Free Dictionary are as follows:

Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.

Subjective: Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world:

Why does the fact that we can only perceive objective reality with our senses mean it is unreal? Why would the fact that our knowledge occurs in the mind mean the perception of an external reality is faulty reasoning?

Everything you have posted occurred in your mind, does that mean your post doesn"t really exist; does it mean all of your reasoning is faulty?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 11:12:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 11:09:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The existence of objective reality provides strong explanatory power to the reason our senses make such interpretations. A preexisting dataset provides a strong interpretation for why our senses work the way they work.
Try telling this or using this logic when talking to an amputee. I would love to hear you justify why their senses are telling them their limb is still present and a part of their body when it is obviously no longer in existence. So exactly what is your point when attempting to justify "why our senses work the way they work"? Unless I misunderstand you then I agree our senses are not reliable enough to establish a viable preexisting data set.
Your explanation or reasoning is not even close to being a logical basis for an argument that our senses should be considered as a reliable tool for establishing an objective reality. Your comment seems to be ambiguous as to exactly what point you are trying to make as far as I read it. You could elaborate if you like as to what you are saying about how our senses actually work if I'm missing your point.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:19:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 7:39:59 PM, n7 wrote:

Just because senses appear to be subjective doesn't entail reality is no more than our senses. We may be observing and interpreting sense data which would fit with your justifications, but still have an objective reality.

Senses don't appear to be subjective, they are completely subjective. Let's say you take a picture. The camera captures an analogue of the image, which is then digitized into a code. This code is then used to illuminate your screen in a pattern which is based upon the original analogue. Your eyes work essentially the same way. Your nerves create an image in your brain based upon nerve data. This gives the illusion that your eyes are directly perceiving reality, but in fact you are only really perceiving coded nerve signals. This process is not fundamentally different than a blind person asking you what something looks like, and then accepting without question the data you give them.

Yes, we may be observing a legitimate objective reality. But my point is that you cannot dismiss the possibility that we aren't. All five senses are subjective, and great thinkers for centuries have been using meditation towards the realization that reality is false. In the last century, modern physics has been falling into line with this paradigm...

Furthermore, if everything is a subjective VR, then what am I observing when I am seeing something? And if things like color doesn't exist objectively, then what is actually red or blue when we observe something?

You are observing consciousness. You are observing yourself. I would ask you: what do you think you are observing? Science has attempted to discover the atom, and found only empty space and vibrations of string.

When light bounces off an object, it changes slightly based upon what substance it is made out of. The wavelength reflected off of one object is slightly larger or smaller than another wavelength. All we really can "see" is red, blue, and yellow wavelengths, and if you think there is some fundamental meaning to these then you should know that other organisms can arbitrarily select different wavelengths to "see." Some organisms don't see color at all, and some birds have four or even five primary colors they decide to perceive the world in. And we don't even "see" all of the wavelengths, we just choose a narrow band which we've decided is useful. There is absolutely no relevance in the concept of color, and the same can be said of any sensory experience and any quality found in physics. Mass, charge, spin, and other qualities are nothing but information, similar to how an image in a videogame is not real but just information.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:28:22 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 3:55:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
So your proof that objective reality doesn't exist is that our perceptions of it are distorted. In other words, objective reality doesn't exist because it exists differently than how we perceive it. One of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen.

"Proof" is such a bastardized term... Objective reality doesn't exist differently than our perception, objective reality is nothing but our perception.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:51:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 11:09:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
The existence of objective reality provides strong explanatory power to the reason our senses make such interpretations. A preexisting dataset provides a strong interpretation for why our senses work the way they work.

Well-said. And this is the reason why we have assumed that objective reality is true for a million years. Similar reasoning was used to explain why the Earth was flat. A flat Earth provides strong explanatory power for why land is flat. Watching a rock fall faster than a leaf provided strong explanatory power as to why massive objects fall faster than light ones. Relativity defied the strong interpretation of how two objects heading straight at each other should always have a relative velocity of the sums of both speeds and directions of said objects. There is a clear pattern in physics that progress involves laying our strong explanations down, at least momentarily, to analyze whether the assumptions therein are valid.

The fact is that consciousness cannot be explained within the current metaparadigm and I am offering a new one here to explain the observations physicists are making about the universe. If objective reality is true, then why didn't we discover the atom [in the ancient Greek sense, not the modern physics sense]? The modern atom is filled with nothing, there is no discernible substance to the table in front of you other than vibrations of a string or something to that effect. Also, why is consciousness 100% beyond the realm of physics? What is with the Uncertainty Principle, and how in God's name can you possibly explain entanglement without some reference to consciousness? There is a class of inexplicable phenomenon cropping up in modern physics, and it just so happens that thinkers of antiquity - most notably Kant - already had the answers centuries before we even had the questions. That answer is that consciousness is the foundation of reality, and objective reality is simply a manifestation of consciousness - of subjective reality.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:59:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:10:35 PM, chui wrote:

We have twenty senses for example pain, hunger, pulmonary stretch receptors, chemoreceptors, proprioception are some of the less well known senses that you appear ignorant of.

Could you offer a citation for the claim that we have 20 senses? If this is true then I am indeed ignorant! I won't hold my breath waiting for said citation, of course.

Our senses might well be misleading us. If this is the case then we know nothing at all and any further debate is meaningless and pointless. Ideas of subjective and objective have no meaning if we cannot be sure that we actually exist. "I think therefore I am" the famous plagiarist Descartes said is probably the most useless statement ever.

Descartes was attempting to break down reality into what he knew, and then build it back up based upon only what he was sure of. His result was that he wasn't sure of much... but don't be disheartened, there is still meaning to our subjective existence. One point many of us are failing to note is that just because something is subjective doesn't make it meaningless, my point is that subjectivity is more meaningful than objectivity. But we are so used to using the word "subjective' as a way to spit at our enemies that this goes unnoticed...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 6:04:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 5:24:45 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight...

Colors are qualia, which is a feature of experience, but it is an experience of something, and that certainly doesn't make the thing experienced unreal or render the experienced thing itself subjective.

It certainly doesn't. But then again it doesn't certainly make it either subjective or objective. I am raising the objection to the assumption that objective reality is true because our senses say so. All that I ask is that, given the clear lack of proof either way, that we level the playing field for a moment and ask which is more likely. As I said earlier, I think concepts like entanglement weigh the scales in my favor...

How do you know objects are not blue yellow or red? On what basis do you assert that color is not a feature of external reality?

As I replied to another poster, colors are not even arguably objective. We see 3 wavelengths of light, which are nothing more than the EM radiation changing slightly as it hits an object of different substance. The picture we get in our minds of a colorful reality exists *only* in our minds. A concerto exists only in our minds. The taste of Italian food, the feel of sandpaper, the smell of a rose are all experiences that hold no objective meaning, they are our brain's creation. To even say that it is an interpretation is a stretch in my opinion.

Getting back to light, we have 3 receptors and other animals have different numbers of them. So there is no inherent meaning of blue, yellow, and red, it is an arbitrary arrangement of our species. These colors help us differentiate substances in our environment, probably based off of what we commonly experience in forests and other ecosystems on Earth... and if it were more helpful, we would instead make a color for infrared or ultraviolet or some other wavelength and then see the world in that way.

... there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective!

Yep, per the definition of objective that would be an objective fact, the floor and the walls exist outside of the mind. The second definition of objective in the Free Dictionary is: "b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts."

Why do you think the act of observation makes the thing observed subjective and unreal?

Why does the act of observation make particles change behaviors in the double-slit experiment? We already know through many different experiments that the act of observation changes reality. There is a fundamental link between consciousness and reality, one that is most simply explained (not proved) by deducing that reality is a product of the mind. Your explanation, that consciousness is dependent upon reality, creates more complicated and paradoxical situations than mine does. I will side with Occam's Razor every time.

Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter...

I don't understand why you declare the attributes of matter to be unreal and why you consider everything we have learned about matter to lack "fundamental meaning", what does that mean and why do you assert it? It doesn't logically follow that just because knowledge occurs in the mind and the attributes of what we perceive occur in the mind, that the things we perceive and know are not real .

Matter should be made of "stuff." If matter has fundamental meaning, then we should have peered down and found substance there, not 99.99999% empty space around a nucleus of informational attributes. Particles should be THERE, not sometimes here if you don't look there and then in one place until you disturb another one in a different place. Something is fishy with our metaparadigm of reality, and again I think the simplest explanation is that consciousness is the foundation.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

What does" experience these objects directly" even mean? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says there are certain complementary pairs of values that cannot be determined relative to each other, there are pairs of measurements that can't simultaneously be known precisely, why would that mean that matter isn"t really there?

Please excuse the crude language, by "experience them directly" I mean that even God himself would not be able to look at an electron or other fundamental particle. That is because they are not really there to look at in the first place. You take the conservative position, that particles do exist but it's simply the "pairs of measurements" that are the problem. Some theoretical physicists, like yourself (I am assuming you are in that camp based on your objections to my reasoning), see uncertainty and entanglement as problems to be addressed. Reality is there, we just need the right theory to break down the chaos and bring us back to our comfort-zone... we need to break down the illusion and explain these paradoxical observations. Einstein dropped the relativistic bombshell on our heads, completely changing the way we viewed reality, and then spent the last decades of his life fighting against what the UP was predicting. He hated entanglement and the disorder he perceived to come from it.

I think Einstein, as legendary as he was, became a failure later in life because he wouldn't accept the new theories. Even scientists who do accept them now are trying to explain them using the current paradigms instead of just letting go of these preconceptions and accepting that we need to look at reality from a new point of view. Getting back to your statement, it's not that we simply can't make a pair of measurements, it is the case that a particle absolutely does not have a position and velocity in the first place.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind.

Sounds like you are declaring that you are an Idealist, is that the point?

I don't believe so, although I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is that in the sense that Plato considers everything to have an ideal form?

All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

You seem to be making up new definitions of objective and subjective; the first definitions in the Free Dictionary are as follows:

Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.

Subjective: Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world:

Accepted. How am I inconsistent with these definitions?

Why does the fact that we can only perceive objective reality with our senses mean it is unreal? Why would the fact that our knowledge occurs in the mind mean the perception of an external reality is faulty reasoning?

Entanglement and such are the basis for my objections to objective reality. The subjectivity of our senses is relevant only because it is this data that we use to ground ourselves in the current metaparadigm that reality is objective and is the basis of consciousness, when consciousness is actually the basis of reality.

Everything you have posted occurred in your mind, does that mean your post doesn"t really exist; does it mean all of your reasoning is faulty?

My ideas are noumena - quite real - and my post is meaningful in that it is an outcropping of my subjective, conscious-based reality.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 1:43:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist

I think modern physics has a say in this though... (read the points I've made already)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:37:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 1:43:02 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist

I think modern physics has a say in this though... (read the points I've made already)

You mentioned the uncertainty principle, but even that only supports the view that we can't view or measure objective reality, which still doesn't imply that there is no objective reality. The best we do is to adopt an agnostic view of objective morality.

However, since we all perceive reality in similar (just not identical) ways, I think the likelihood of an objective reality existing is very high.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:11:14 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 3:37:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/18/2016 1:43:02 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist

I think modern physics has a say in this though... (read the points I've made already)

You mentioned the uncertainty principle, but even that only supports the view that we can't view or measure objective reality, which still doesn't imply that there is no objective reality. The best we do is to adopt an agnostic view of objective morality.

However, since we all perceive reality in similar (just not identical) ways, I think the likelihood of an objective reality existing is very high.

I take a strong interpretation of the UP. Most armchair theoretical physicists look at the UP and say "OK so we can't view/measure the particles, but they're still there." I disagree with that sentiment. That's not to say that all legitimate, professional physicists agree with me - they don't - but I think this is due to the resistance to any paradigm-shift that unwaveringly occurs every time a new theory takes over that is the cause of this, not that the idea is actually not viable.

The UP by itself makes a strong argument that objective reality is false. When you look at entanglement and many other aspects of the physical world we are uncovering, like the nature of light and the double-slit experiment (among others), there seem to be many independent arrows all pointing at the same thing. It's not JUST that the senses can't be trusted. It's not JUST that the UP calls objective reality into question. We are seeing a clear pattern here. When matter is cooled to near absolute zero it doesn't just slow down, it becomes a probabilistic smear (similar to nearly halting time). Photons exist outside the dimension of time. Matter has no substance to it. Lightcones indicate that even local objects only exist in each others' past, not its present, and observers occupy their own relativistic universes. To an observer many billions of light years away, you change your relative temporal position to them by centuries every time you walk towards them and turn around and walk the other way. When you take all this and add it to the fact that
a) our senses are the basis of our belief in objective reality and
b) our consciousness has been shown, way beyond a reasonable doubt, to change reality simply by passively observing it
then I think we have a very clear case for objective reality being false. There is more reason to believe it is false than there is to believe it is true, and while we do seem to agree on everything that is going on to a remarkable degree, that doesn't necessarily mean that what we're agreeing on isn't intrinsically-subjective. Subjective reality can be just as real as what we considered objective reality, it's just that we have to accept the fact that consciousness is the basis of matter and not the other way around. Your consciousness, right now, is expanding 300 million meters of space for every second of time you exist. This creates the illusion that light is traveling through space, but in reality the point of emanation and absorption of a photon is the same instant (due to the relativity). So that quasar you see through the telescope might seem infinitely distant, but it's actually touching your nose.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:42:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:11:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:37:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/18/2016 1:43:02 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist

I think modern physics has a say in this though... (read the points I've made already)

You mentioned the uncertainty principle, but even that only supports the view that we can't view or measure objective reality, which still doesn't imply that there is no objective reality. The best we do is to adopt an agnostic view of objective morality.

However, since we all perceive reality in similar (just not identical) ways, I think the likelihood of an objective reality existing is very high.

I take a strong interpretation of the UP. Most armchair theoretical physicists look at the UP and say "OK so we can't view/measure the particles, but they're still there." I disagree with that sentiment. That's not to say that all legitimate, professional physicists agree with me - they don't - but I think this is due to the resistance to any paradigm-shift that unwaveringly occurs every time a new theory takes over that is the cause of this, not that the idea is actually not viable.

The UP by itself makes a strong argument that objective reality is false. When you look at entanglement and many other aspects of the physical world we are uncovering, like the nature of light and the double-slit experiment (among others), there seem to be many independent arrows all pointing at the same thing. It's not JUST that the senses can't be trusted. It's not JUST that the UP calls objective reality into question. We are seeing a clear pattern here. When matter is cooled to near absolute zero it doesn't just slow down, it becomes a probabilistic smear (similar to nearly halting time). Photons exist outside the dimension of time. Matter has no substance to it. Lightcones indicate that even local objects only exist in each others' past, not its present, and observers occupy their own relativistic universes. To an observer many billions of light years away, you change your relative temporal position to them by centuries every time you walk towards them and turn around and walk the other way. When you take all this and add it to the fact that
a) our senses are the basis of our belief in objective reality and
b) our consciousness has been shown, way beyond a reasonable doubt, to change reality simply by passively observing it
then I think we have a very clear case for objective reality being false. There is more reason to believe it is false than there is to believe it is true, and while we do seem to agree on everything that is going on to a remarkable degree, that doesn't necessarily mean that what we're agreeing on isn't intrinsically-subjective. Subjective reality can be just as real as what we considered objective reality, it's just that we have to accept the fact that consciousness is the basis of matter and not the other way around. Your consciousness, right now, is expanding 300 million meters of space for every second of time you exist. This creates the illusion that light is traveling through space, but in reality the point of emanation and absorption of a photon is the same instant (due to the relativity). So that quasar you see through the telescope might seem infinitely distant, but it's actually touching your nose.

I'm sorry that I'm not well-versed in physics (or even poorly-versed - I have not taken more than a year of lessons). However, I have to ask how you can justify the underlined part, for I genuinely have difficulty accepting it. How can we account for the striking congruence between our perceptions of reality, for instance? Without objective reality, what exactly are we perceiving in the first place?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 7:40:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 3:42:08 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/18/2016 4:11:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:37:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/18/2016 1:43:02 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist

I think modern physics has a say in this though... (read the points I've made already)

You mentioned the uncertainty principle, but even that only supports the view that we can't view or measure objective reality, which still doesn't imply that there is no objective reality. The best we do is to adopt an agnostic view of objective morality.

However, since we all perceive reality in similar (just not identical) ways, I think the likelihood of an objective reality existing is very high.

I take a strong interpretation of the UP. Most armchair theoretical physicists look at the UP and say "OK so we can't view/measure the particles, but they're still there." I disagree with that sentiment. That's not to say that all legitimate, professional physicists agree with me - they don't - but I think this is due to the resistance to any paradigm-shift that unwaveringly occurs every time a new theory takes over that is the cause of this, not that the idea is actually not viable.

The UP by itself makes a strong argument that objective reality is false. When you look at entanglement and many other aspects of the physical world we are uncovering, like the nature of light and the double-slit experiment (among others), there seem to be many independent arrows all pointing at the same thing. It's not JUST that the senses can't be trusted. It's not JUST that the UP calls objective reality into question. We are seeing a clear pattern here. When matter is cooled to near absolute zero it doesn't just slow down, it becomes a probabilistic smear (similar to nearly halting time). Photons exist outside the dimension of time. Matter has no substance to it. Lightcones indicate that even local objects only exist in each others' past, not its present, and observers occupy their own relativistic universes. To an observer many billions of light years away, you change your relative temporal position to them by centuries every time you walk towards them and turn around and walk the other way. When you take all this and add it to the fact that
a) our senses are the basis of our belief in objective reality and
b) our consciousness has been shown, way beyond a reasonable doubt, to change reality simply by passively observing it
then I think we have a very clear case for objective reality being false. There is more reason to believe it is false than there is to believe it is true, and while we do seem to agree on everything that is going on to a remarkable degree, that doesn't necessarily mean that what we're agreeing on isn't intrinsically-subjective. Subjective reality can be just as real as what we considered objective reality, it's just that we have to accept the fact that consciousness is the basis of matter and not the other way around. Your consciousness, right now, is expanding 300 million meters of space for every second of time you exist. This creates the illusion that light is traveling through space, but in reality the point of emanation and absorption of a photon is the same instant (due to the relativity). So that quasar you see through the telescope might seem infinitely distant, but it's actually touching your nose.

I'm sorry that I'm not well-versed in physics (or even poorly-versed - I have not taken more than a year of lessons). However, I have to ask how you can justify the underlined part, for I genuinely have difficulty accepting it. How can we account for the striking congruence between our perceptions of reality, for instance? Without objective reality, what exactly are we perceiving in the first place?

Well if you are interested in physics, I would suggest taking the classes in school and supplementing with Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." This is the best selling book of all time (yes you heard that right). Hawking has a gift for bridging the gap between physicist and student, and is the best chance for any learner to start to grasp these concepts which are really quite anti-intuitive. If you haven't studied relativity, and then quantum mechanics, and then more crazy things like entanglement, then you're not going to be receptive to the underlined part about consciousness. Theoretical physics, to me, is about breaking down preconceived notions about reality and replacing them with new ideas that agree with experiment. Hawking will guide you through relativity and introduce you to quantum mechanics, and after that you can grapple with the uncertainty principle and take it to the next level (Bryan Greene works well for QM but he must come after Hawking or it will be rough, he has a good book called The Elegant Universe). Down the road you will be ready for the real fun stuff like entanglement.

I'm not sure how much good it will do you at this point in the game, but if you want to say screw it and skip to what I'm talking about then this video is remarkable. This is the inspiration for this thread, and he can slowly walk you through the reasoning but it is assumed you have a background in physics already (although there isn't complex math or anything that will be too undigestable). Peter Russell studied under Stephen Hawking at one point, and he is my favorite (alive) thinker. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 4:41:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

1. Sight. Our eyes perceive fluctuations in the EM spectrum, and then ascribe color to certain wavelengths. Color is the basis of sight, and color does not exist in objective reality. Objects are not blue, yellow, or red.
2. Hearing. Similarly, our ears make sound out of air vibrations. Tone, pitch, etc. are all subjective attributes that do not exist outside our minds.
3, 4. Smell and taste. Even less intuitively objective than the first two.
5. Touch. One would think this is where you draw the line. Ok, the rest are subjective, but there really is a floor underneath me and walls next to me, right? That's got to be objective! Well actually science has yet to find any fundamental meaning in the concept of matter. Sure, we can work it very well into physical theory, but what about matter is solid? A piece of wood appears solid, but is porous upon closer examination. The wood fibers are made up of atoms, which turn out to be 99.9999% empty space around a "solid" nucleus. Elementary particles in the nucleus are now turning out to be simply vibrations of a string or some other just as meaningless concept, with attributes like mass, charge and spin which are no more real than vibrations in air or the EM spectrum.

And even if, EVEN IF atoms were given full rights as solid, definite objects, the uncertainty principle would preclude us, or even God himself, from being able to experience these objects directly. They are forever hidden from view, there but not really there.

The material world exists as a subjective virtual-reality being played in your mind. All you have to believe otherwise are your preconceptions, your senses, and others who agree with you who are themselves subject to the same faulty reasoning.

But if you can"t perceive anything or anyone, then are you dead, or even exist? Or, what if no one can perceive you, and you can perceive everyone and everything else, then again, are you dead, or even exist?

Perception via the senses proves nothing, other than one can perceive and or be perceived.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 6:13:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

Is this objectively true?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 4:29:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 7:40:05 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:42:08 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/18/2016 4:11:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:37:32 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/18/2016 1:43:02 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/17/2016 6:27:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
We can't perceive objective reality =/= objective reality doesn't exist

I think modern physics has a say in this though... (read the points I've made already)

You mentioned the uncertainty principle, but even that only supports the view that we can't view or measure objective reality, which still doesn't imply that there is no objective reality. The best we do is to adopt an agnostic view of objective morality.

However, since we all perceive reality in similar (just not identical) ways, I think the likelihood of an objective reality existing is very high.

I take a strong interpretation of the UP. Most armchair theoretical physicists look at the UP and say "OK so we can't view/measure the particles, but they're still there." I disagree with that sentiment. That's not to say that all legitimate, professional physicists agree with me - they don't - but I think this is due to the resistance to any paradigm-shift that unwaveringly occurs every time a new theory takes over that is the cause of this, not that the idea is actually not viable.

The UP by itself makes a strong argument that objective reality is false. When you look at entanglement and many other aspects of the physical world we are uncovering, like the nature of light and the double-slit experiment (among others), there seem to be many independent arrows all pointing at the same thing. It's not JUST that the senses can't be trusted. It's not JUST that the UP calls objective reality into question. We are seeing a clear pattern here. When matter is cooled to near absolute zero it doesn't just slow down, it becomes a probabilistic smear (similar to nearly halting time). Photons exist outside the dimension of time. Matter has no substance to it. Lightcones indicate that even local objects only exist in each others' past, not its present, and observers occupy their own relativistic universes. To an observer many billions of light years away, you change your relative temporal position to them by centuries every time you walk towards them and turn around and walk the other way. When you take all this and add it to the fact that
a) our senses are the basis of our belief in objective reality and
b) our consciousness has been shown, way beyond a reasonable doubt, to change reality simply by passively observing it
then I think we have a very clear case for objective reality being false. There is more reason to believe it is false than there is to believe it is true, and while we do seem to agree on everything that is going on to a remarkable degree, that doesn't necessarily mean that what we're agreeing on isn't intrinsically-subjective. Subjective reality can be just as real as what we considered objective reality, it's just that we have to accept the fact that consciousness is the basis of matter and not the other way around. Your consciousness, right now, is expanding 300 million meters of space for every second of time you exist. This creates the illusion that light is traveling through space, but in reality the point of emanation and absorption of a photon is the same instant (due to the relativity). So that quasar you see through the telescope might seem infinitely distant, but it's actually touching your nose.

I'm sorry that I'm not well-versed in physics (or even poorly-versed - I have not taken more than a year of lessons). However, I have to ask how you can justify the underlined part, for I genuinely have difficulty accepting it. How can we account for the striking congruence between our perceptions of reality, for instance? Without objective reality, what exactly are we perceiving in the first place?

Well if you are interested in physics, I would suggest taking the classes in school and supplementing with Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." This is the best selling book of all time (yes you heard that right). Hawking has a gift for bridging the gap between physicist and student, and is the best chance for any learner to start to grasp these concepts which are really quite anti-intuitive. If you haven't studied relativity, and then quantum mechanics, and then more crazy things like entanglement, then you're not going to be receptive to the underlined part about consciousness. Theoretical physics, to me, is about breaking down preconceived notions about reality and replacing them with new ideas that agree with experiment. Hawking will guide you through relativity and introduce you to quantum mechanics, and after that you can grapple with the uncertainty principle and take it to the next level (Bryan Greene works well for QM but he must come after Hawking or it will be rough, he has a good book called The Elegant Universe). Down the road you will be ready for the real fun stuff like entanglement.

I'm not sure how much good it will do you at this point in the game, but if you want to say screw it and skip to what I'm talking about then this video is remarkable. This is the inspiration for this thread, and he can slowly walk you through the reasoning but it is assumed you have a background in physics already (although there isn't complex math or anything that will be too undigestable). Peter Russell studied under Stephen Hawking at one point, and he is my favorite (alive) thinker. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com...

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't have the credits to enroll in physics courses, and I won't be able to catch up anyhow. I'll watch the video when I get the time.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:47:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 4:29:40 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't have the credits to enroll in physics courses, and I won't be able to catch up anyhow. I'll watch the video when I get the time.

Haha I took credits of everything when I was in college. I started in computer programming then dropped out (18 y.o.) then came back with a new thirst for knowledge in my early 20s. I took philosophy courses, natural and social science courses, and then settles on poli sci and environmental classes for my major. I loved taking all the different stuff and getting such a well-rounded perspective, I feel like nobody in the world has as good of an understanding of everything as I do - however I was unable to use such a wide breadth to make money and I became a construction worker! LOL don't be like me kids! I wouldn't have done it any different though, even working with my hands became another way to experience the world, and some lessons in life are not for the classroom...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 7:05:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 4:41:52 PM, DPMartin wrote:

But if you can"t perceive anything or anyone, then are you dead, or even exist? Or, what if no one can perceive you, and you can perceive everyone and everything else, then again, are you dead, or even exist?

Remember the point here isn't to say that there is no reality, and I live in a solipsist cage as some Boltzmann Brain or something. Using the words "virtual reality" was probably a mistake on my part. The point here is that consciousness creates matter, and matter does not create consciousness. By deconstructing one's preconceptions about consciousness being created in the human brain - an assumption utterly unsupported by even a single shred of evidence ever collected - one can start to reconcile modern physics in a way that makes sense.

The way we look at the brain now is the same way we look at A.I.. Man can manufacture a computer, plug it in, and watch it "come to life" and perform tasks. It is then assumed that a complex-enough computer will eventually achieve the level necessary for intelligence -> consciousness. This is one of the most ignorant ideas modern people have in their heads, and it really is a shame that we have such a bad understanding of what consciousness (and what machinery) is. A computer performs tasks in the same way that your toaster toasts bread. The most sophisticated computer isn't inherently different than the toaster in your kitchen in any meaningful way, and the reason we see them as different is because we are fascinated with the illusion that a computer is actually doing something like a conscious being would. All that's happening in a computer is switches are opening and closing, and we've manipulated them in a fantastically-complex way as to create an illusion that it's more than that.

In a human brain, one might make the comparison of neurons to switches, but the more important point is that a human brain isn't the sum of its parts like a computer is. Peter Russell compares a human brain to a projector at a movie theater. The screen is our perception in the mind, the projector is our brain focusing light on the screen, and the light itself is consciousness. A supercomputer would be simply a projector with no light and no screen. We can make a computer projector much more sophisticated than a brain projector in theory, but without the light it is still just a complex toaster.

Perception via the senses proves nothing, other than one can perceive and or be perceived.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 7:27:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 6:13:23 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 3/6/2016 4:45:14 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We have 5 ways to observe objective reality, all of which are subjective:

Is this objectively true?

If I am intrinsically subjective, and I am discussing the objective fact that my perception is subjective, I must say it is subjectively-objectively-subjective. 0_o
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.