19 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleYou have body parts that react to specific wave lengths, the wave lengths are
The colours I see are a product of a specific, decoded from my cognitive apparatus, bit of information, and they do not exist our there on their own in separation from my mind (and from our collective subjectivity) that decodes the mentioned bit of information. The colours have no inherent existence. This does not mean that the colours are non-existent; ...[text shortened]... order to be defined, otherwise we have no way to know that it occured at a specific spacetime😵
there if you are or are not. A pile of dirt can be some place that is never seen
by a human being, it like the color of light does not require human interaction
to be real. So colors, that is all that makes them what they are exist with or
without you.
You experiencing them do not add to or take away from that, just as there is
a right ways to keep a promise and plenty of wrong ways to break one. You can
claim your ways to keep a promise is correct, others may debate you on the
merits, but you both agree some "rule/moral' is being fullfilled or broken even
if you don't agree on the details. You see the red you know there is color.
Kelly
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes😵
With the clear understanding that 'observe' does not imply knowingly recognize, but rather 'be affected in some way'. So, for example if the sound in the forest causes a landslide which subsequently causes it to rain on the other side of the world and the observer experiences the rain, then the 'sound' has been 'observed'.
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayDifferent observers may give different accounts of the same series of events (for example, I hear the sound of the rain right now, and so I know it is raining here in Athens. To me, the system “rain” is a single collapsed eigenstate; however this very event -which now is macroscopic to me- it cannot be known to You, unless You observe it).
You have body parts that react to specific wave lengths, the wave lengths are
there if you are or are not. A pile of dirt can be some place that is never seen
by a human being, it like the color of light does not require human interaction
to be real. So colors, that is all that makes them what they are exist with or
without you.
You experiencing them ...[text shortened]... oken even
if you don't agree on the details. You see the red you know there is color.
Kelly
In addition, the “colour” is not a system that has inherent existence and waits for your (our) consciousness to observe and validate it out of the superposition, but a correlation between a specific system and your (our) cognizant apparatus so that you (we) end up with the macroscopic colour we are aware of in the physical world that surrounds us.
Of course in any case the colours are unveiled by our consciousness alone and they are not existent at all to other sentient beings that they don't collapse the wf the way we human beings do. To these sentient beings the "colours" will forever be non-existent, they will remain out of the reality they perceive.
As regards that specific pile of dirt that you mentioned, you cannot comment as regards its existence if you observed it not; your observation can be either physical or mind-only, and anyway all that you will have at last is a specific product of the relation of the epistemic objects defined as "pile of dirt" and "your cognizant apparatus". The agent that unveils the reality we grasp, is our relation and our interaction with the epistemic objects we perceive😵
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59You have a point. Depending on the recording system; squiggles on vinyl and magnetized domains on tape and optically burned spots on a cd aren't sounds are they? Also I can remember songs and "play them in my head." Have I stored sounds, or have I recorded something I can experience as sounds?
The second definition is unsound.
Sound is recordable; it does not require "organs" to be stimulated.
The first definition has some problems too. A dog's range of hearing goes up to 50 - 60 khz whereas a human's doesn't. A bat's goes as high as 200 khz but is not so good below 10 khz. So what is a sound for a dog or a bat might not be a sound to a human.
This is a variation on the question of what is a sound to a deaf versus hearing human, but it is less dismissable.
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Surely sounds outside our hearing range are still sounds?
You have a point. Depending on the recording system; squiggles on vinyl and magnetized domains on tape and optically burned spots on a cd aren't sounds are they? Also I can remember songs and "play them in my head." Have I stored sounds, or have I recorded something I can experience as sounds?
The first definition has some problems too. A dog's range of hea ...[text shortened]... e question of what is a sound to a deaf versus hearing human, but it is less dismissable.
We can talk about sound waves for any frequency and record animals
such as whales and bats without being able to hear them.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59I suppose any repeated compression/decompression of air, whatever the frequency, can conceivably be sensed by some theoretically possible creature.
Surely sounds outside our hearing range are still sounds?
We can talk about sound waves for any frequency and record animals
such as whales and bats without being able to hear them.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleI guess where you and I part company is that I don't believe I have to
Different observers may give different accounts of the same series of events (for example, I hear the sound of the rain right now, and so I know it is raining here in Athens. To me, the system “rain” is a single collapsed eigenstate; however this very event -which now is macroscopic to me- it cannot be known to You, unless You observe it).
In additio ...[text shortened]... ty we grasp, is our relation and our interaction with the epistemic objects we perceive😵
experience something for it to be "real", I'm quite content believing that there
are piles of dirt out there I'll never see that are real. My experience of them or
lack there of doesn't add to or take away from their reality it only adds to or
takes away from my knowledge, which does not make up reality only my small
grasp of it. Samething with color we can disagree on, the shades of red or
however you want to lable something, but we agree by our disagreement that
there are colors, which also goes to the heart of the moral debate. I can without
a doubt disagree with you on details, about breaking a promise, but the simple
fact we debate who is right declares we both know there is a right and wrong
that is being dealt with there. we are quite aware of it to the point we are very
willing to debate it, if there wasn't something there to prove we would not
bother or worse fight over the dispute.
Kelly
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayEdit: “I guess... ...of it.”
I guess where you and I part company is that I don't believe I have to
experience something for it to be "real", I'm quite content believing that there
are piles of dirt out there I'll never see that are real. My experience of them or
lack there of doesn't add to or take away from their reality it only adds to or
takes away from my knowledge, which does ...[text shortened]... n't something there to prove we would not
bother or worse fight over the dispute.
Kelly
In order to define that a specific “something” is real, you have by definition to observe it. Necessarily, the observation has to be conducted either by you in person physically or mind-only, or by our collective subjectivity (you don’t have to come in Athens in person in order to validate the existence/ reality of Parthenon; this epistemic object is already observed by our collective subjectivity and it is existent).
Edit: “Samething with... ...dispute.”
We don’t disagree as regards the existence/ reality of the colours we both perceive. Since we both see them, they are existent to both of us.
We disagree as regards the nature of their very existence, and this is also the point that goes to the heart of the moral debate at this thread. You see the colours as if they were inherently existent, in total separation with everything else that is contained in the observer universe, whilst methinks that they lack of inherent existence although they are a part of the reality we perceive.
The same applies to morality; to me, there is no such a thingy “Morality” out there that has inherent existence. The mind-only existence of the epistemic object “Morality” is merely a product of the human mind alone, just like the colours. I evaluate “Colours” and “Morality” as specific epistemic objects that to us came into existence simply because they are products of the interaction of our cognizant apparatus with the physical world (colours), and with our inner world (morality) respectively
😵
20 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, if we innately know it to be true, then it cannot be that some 2000 year-old zombie just up and somehow "established" it and thus opened our eyes to it. So, now you're just contradicting yourself.
Not at all. We all innately know to treat others the way we want to be treated. Of course, none of us do all the time, but then, that is why we get dinged by our conscience.
Of course, those without a conscience include those who ignore it over an extended period of time or those who simply have a pathology of some sort.
I would agree that we have an innate moral faculty. It is totally absurd to suggest that it is completely undergirded by something like the golden rule. The golden rule just generally appeals to our notions of reciprocity, which only partially make up our moral sense. It is likewise absurd to suggest that our moral faculty came about through some invisible sky fairy and his 2000 year old zombie son, who also happens to be himself. This is the "Goddunit" non-answer to the question of the etiology of our moral faculty, which is only slightly more meritorious than the "I'm too lazy to really consider it" non-answer.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleReality much be a very little thing between your ears, and that is not an
Edit: “I guess... ...of it.”
In order to define that a specific “something” is real, you have by definition to observe it. Necessarily, the observation has to be conducted either by you in person physically or mind-only, or by our collective subjectivity (you don’t have to come in Athens in person in order to validate the existence/ reality of Parthe ...[text shortened]... pparatus with the physical world (colours), and with our inner world (morality) respectively
😵
attempt at an insult either. So if God were real and has the ability to observe
everything at once, wouldn't that change your point of view about, well all
things?
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleTW: With the clear understanding that 'observe' does not imply knowingly recognize, but rather 'be affected in some way'. So, for example if the sound in the forest causes a landslide which subsequently causes it to rain on the other side of the world and the observer experiences the rain, then the 'sound' has been 'observed'.
Yes😵
BB: Yes😵
JS: The human observes (is affected by) the rain which observes the landslide which observes the sound of the falling tree.
20 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357So if a tree falls and no one is there to see it, it is still part of the whole is it
TW: With the clear understanding that 'observe' does not imply knowingly recognize, but rather 'be affected in some way'. So, for example if the sound in the forest causes a landslide which subsequently causes it to rain on the other side of the world and the observer experiences the rain, then the 'sound' has been 'observed'.
BB: Yes😵
JS: The human obs ...[text shortened]... by) the rain which observes the landslide which observes the sound of the falling tree.
not, and any affect upon the whole touches all of its parts would it not? So all
things seen and unseen that have even the littlest part to play, plays a part
in all other things, correct? So if all of that is true, then nothing is without
a place in the universal play and all things touch all things, making what we
do not see or grasp part of our lives too. The colors we see but do not with
our understanding grasp show us that colors are real, and truth about what
we call morals even if we see it as badly as we do colors show us the same
thing, there is something there that we acknowledge, but do not fully grasp
nonetheless.
Kelly
21 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI have no way to know that the epistemic object G-d is real and has the ability to observe everything at once😵
Reality much be a very little thing between your ears, and that is not an
attempt at an insult either. So if God were real and has the ability to observe
everything at once, wouldn't that change your point of view about, well all
things?
Kelly