And speaking of (time) it is utterly easy for me to see time as being the conscious experience of (timeless) motion -and this leaves me wondering what time is doing in Einstein’s math equations as an external component (with or without consciousness.) We can think of the universe before it was experienced but yet again its consciousness doing the work. And time is not a number it is a an experience.
@theloosegoose333 Time is experienced by CO's. Without CO's, there cannot be time. Which seems crazy. But that must be the case. Time didn't exist for you ten years before you were born. And if there were no human CO's time could not exist. Time is just as symbiotic as the universe. Without time we could not exist, and time could not exist without us.
And so when someone writes on one of those posters that show two people looking up at the nighttime sky, and one says the other “it makes you feel really small” they don’t realize that they are the “big” of all that seemingly endless stuff because they are the conscious (part of it) the observer.
@theloosegoose333 I love this thought. A fun one. And of course is there a CO in the universe looking back? If so, that CO must also be bringing the universe into existence as well.
I think that it cannot be any other way, as in other words an apple comes from an apple tree, and a cognizant (fruit) comes from a mindful tree (or aware) universal field.
And either that or we ignore the examples we have to work with and ask answers of someone that ignores these facts, and yet I will not, and that is why I do not, do that.
You have been reading my mind from way back when regarding my thoughts on the conscious observer being of the utmost importance to the reality of the universe. Without observation it certainly does not observe itself.
Everything is conscious and self aware to an extent, this is what we have been told for thousands of years by those we ignorantly call "primitive." Nice video.
It's not a matter of "getting it" it's a matter of there not being any reason whatsoever to believe it.
This suggests that no aspect of our physical universe existed until a CO discovered it. Pluto didn't exist until the early 18th century and thus Pluto's 3 moons didn't exist until the 20th and 21st century. How many objects in space have been captured on film only to be discovered as planets, asteroids and comets years later.
@RTyp06 It IS a matter of getting it, and you don't. What you do not get is that everything that exists does so in the perception of a conscious observer. I don't care whether you get it or not. It doesn't matter a lick in your life or mine if you do or do not.
If anything exists only from then a CO percieves it, does this mean that we are all perceiving the "World", that came into existence from the FIRST of all CO'S ?
God is the rest, and only believing in him can we enter into that rest. The rest from trying to figure it out. It's accepting him that we accept his creation. Something miraculous happened in my mind/soul/brain when I accepted God into my heart/mind/brain/being. I entered into his rest, and didn't loose one once of logic.
@stevebee92653 The only explanation i've heard thus far for"far too perfect to be random" argument is the multiverse theory. That our universe is one of many and the conditions were perfect because it was programmed to expand and develop that way- similar to (though not comparable to) the way a cell is.
@stevebee92653 mean that a vast conscious intelligence that created the big bang (or the so called 'particle' that exploded into the big bang) didn't. Who knows? I certainly don't have all the answers. Maybe (as some physicists believe) the universe as self aware. And then again there are some scientists (including a few that created/proposed the big bang theory)that now believe that consciousness preceded the big bang, as the condition were FAR TOO Perfect to be 'random'. The only other
@stevebee92653 Perceived in the material universe. Also, science is proveing that each cell is conscious, and possibly even atoms as they too exchange information with one another! Which is what the universe can be described as. vibrational information of different wavelengths. Science is also showing that our senses are only perceiving 0.00012% of these vibrations! All that we "see" isn't all that is there- by any means. Just because we haven't observed it to bring it into existence doesn't
@stevebee92653 I believe life is eternal and goes on forever repeating itself in a fractal holographic manner. The part i somewhat disagree with is the co-dependence. In this universe-yes. However I feel that outside of this universe or perhaps in other dimensions consciousness can exist without matter. The thing that baffles me is the number of proven near death experiences in which a dead person observes everything in a purely conscious state- perhaps in a dimension that cannot be
@stevebee92653 And i believe the observer 13.7 billion years ago at the moment of the big bang was it's creator. A vast conscious intelligence beyond our comprehension. And if not then what created the particle that exploded into the big bang in the first place??Did it create itself?? Thus the paradoxical chicken and egg debate rises again.And it's because life is a fractal hologram that repeats itself.Connected in dimensions we can't perceive with our 5 senses.
@russboone84 I can't argue with your ideas. The notion that the universe itself is "conscious" is one I have toyed with as well. It seems to fit a logical model while it is also pure fantasy. But good fantasy. Thanks for the intelligent and interesting comment. I wish there were more of these.
@ChickenHawk110 Even cells are "conscious"in their own right. They too "observe" their environment. Science is proving that EVEN ATOMS ARE CONSCIOUS in the way that they exchange information (though conscious in a way that we aren't, or rather in a way that we don't understand). Read my response to stevebee below.
@ChickenHawk110 Chicken is BACK! And he still doesn't understand. Wow. I actually thought you might evolve some grey matter by this time, but no. Sigh.
@ChickenHawk110 If you die or didn't exist, the universe wouldn't exist FOR YOU. Now would it? Which shows you don't understand. What was the universe FOR YOU ten years before you were born chickenhawk? Ask yourself that and see if that helps you figure it out.
@ChickenHawk110 You sure sigh a lot for a know-it-all. (1) Get a dictionary (2) Look up "paradox" (3) Do you have any friends? If so, do they enjoy the fact that you know everything?
I WAS discussing the video, and your (well...Greenstiens) premise.
Isnt it funny how you note on your hilarious site "please restrict your comments to the material in the video", yet here you are, bailing out of the hole that you that you have dug for yourself with benign jibs about "being a know it all". Where is that on the video?
Not the first time you have behaved in such a hypocritical manner is it steve?
You are saying that nothing exists outside of our perception. But that's not true. Electromagnetic radiation exists outside of our perception. Airwaves exist, whether we are around to interpret them as noise or not.
@philnoll If there is ZERO conscious observers, sorry, they don't exist. You can't remove yourself from the scene. You visually imagine them being there anyway. You need to go one more level. You probably can't.
@stevebee92653 I can imagine whatever you want. Doesn't make it true. Your video says 1a. The sun gives of electromagnetic radiation. I'll agree that EMR is not light, color, or visual images. But what makes you think it isn't EMR?
@philnoll Color, light, and visual images are EMR which is coded then perceived by our retinas, optic nerves, and visual cortices. Maybe I don't quite get your question.
@stevebee92653 Well its like you just said. EMR is coded and THEN perceived as visual images. The way you just said it, EMR exists before it is perceived. So it seems there is something real beyond our 5 senses.
@philnoll Good thinking. But, again, you can't get rid of the "perceiver". The EMR exists, can be recorded, and measured because of the "perceiver" in your comment.
Okay. But this argument is paradoxical. IF you can prove that nothing exists without a conscious observer, you are still basing that on conscious observations. You are using science to prove that science is an illusion. So it would seem that your conclusion is also an illusion.
@philnoll They are codependent. They cannot exist without each other. Which makes one wonder about the first CO. The universe had to exist to bring the first CO into existence. The first CO brought the universe into existence. So there is another chicken and egg problem.
I would only take issue with your conclusion here sir. Could you please elaborate for me how you come to the conclusion: If we dont exist, the universe doesnt exist, given that sound, light, smell etc.. are mearly perception? Isnt it still true that the tree exists, and did in fact fall, regardless of wether someone was there to see or hear it?
@arktheball Remember I say this is a paradox. The universe appears to be one age, and can only be another due to the fact that everything that exists does so in our perception. Which part of this vid do you disagree with?
Does sound exist outside the perception of a CO? Does light? Did that tree exist FOR YOU ten years before you were born? What was the sun? What color was the ocean? Was there one?
If you don't get it from this vid, you aren't going to get it at all.
@stevebee92653 Yes I remmber. I disagree however that everythin exists only within our perceptions. Light exists only within my head yes, but outside of my head there is still the electromagnetic radiation, and the source of said radiation. The tree exists independent of wether I percieve it or not. Elsewise you wouldnt exist to me, if I understand your argument correctly. Most likely yes, the sun existed as well as the tree, before I was born. I have asked my parents, they confirmed it did.
@arktheball You don't translate what I am saying. I said FOR YOU ten years before YOU were born. Your parents are CO recorders, and have recorded the tree for you. Just like we know the Civil War occurred because there were CO recorders. But if there was no life whatsoever, there are no observers or recorders. No perception where that tree can exist. No tree. No fall. No noise. No color, light, or visual images. No odor. No texture. Not taste. Nothing.
@stevebee92653 I understand that the light and sound are in our heads, but can you please explain to me how that translates to the source of the input not existing if I didnt recieve its input?
@arktheball Everything that exists does so in the perception of a CO. I can't do any more than these vids and this comment.. If you don't get it, time to move on. Try reading "The Symbiotic Universe".
I agree with everything on here except at 4:02. You're saying no life = no consciousness = no universe because everything is in our perception. Do you know why it's in our perception? Because it exists. Something must exist BEFOREHAND in order for it to be percieved! Our senses can only pick up what exists to be picked up. If that's not true, then that's the definition of an illusion, not reality.
@Moshikashitenai You are correct and what you are saying is part of the paradox. CO's need a universe to be born into and to initially observe. So the universe HAD to exist before CO's.
But, since the universe exists only in the consciousness/perception of a CO, the universe requires observation for it's existence. Observation brings the universe into existence. Which is what the book "Symbiotic Universe" is about. Both need each other, if you know symbiosis.
@stevebee92653 Okay, well if a CO needs a universe to exist, then let's say that it doesn't. A CO needs to exist to be able to observed, right? Let's say that there's only one CO. How did that CO come to be? It has to be observed. That's just like my eyeball analogy. eyes exist, even though they can't see themselves. What I'm struggling with is that if there's CO's and a universe, and they are mutually dependent, then why and how do either of them exist? THAT'S the real paradox imho.
@Moshikashitenai Your eyeball thing is not a good example. You are stuck on visual observation.
You are right. That is the real paradox. I wish I could answer all questions, but I cannot. I would be worshiped and get all kinds of Nobel's. We have to go with what is here now, and how it operates. And try to figure it's origins as best we can. The origin of everything is still the greatest Puzzle ever known to mankind.
@Moshikashitenai I don't have the answer for the first minute of existence for the universe and man. Who or what was here at what split second? Did observation occur gradually? And since the universe appears 13.7 BYO, how does that fit in? How was the universe first observed? It's just another part of this fantastic Puzzle that is so much fun to think about, and so impossible to solve. I don't pretend to have an answer. You have come a long way to at least understanding what I am saying.
So are you arguing that EM waves out of the visible light spectrum (X-Rays for example) and sound out of our hearing range (ultrasound) don't exsists?
Oh, all the quotes from physicists you use I thought you were arguing this from a quantum mechanical point of view, my bad. This is a philosophical argument.
Of course colour only exsists in our heads, and a blue chair is only blue or a chair if I or something looks at it and says "hey that's blue and it's a chair".
But the act of looking at something and defining it as a "blue chair" doesn't change the physical properties of it nor the fact that it exsists at all.
@AceBean27 The act of looking at the chair brings it into existence for the looker. This is quantum mechanical, and physiological. And if you want, philosophical. This is how things (we) work Everything that exists must exist in the perception of a CO. Everything that seems "out there" is really in our cortices. Our brains. The "out there" is an illusion.
Re: an observer changing the state of matter: Check "The Infamous Double Slit Experiment" if you're not familiar with it.
@stevebee92653 Yes I've done the experiement and done the maths behind it. The young's double slit experiment has nothing to do with conscious observers. It's the interaction with the photons that causes the superposition of states to collapse, whether from a person or a stray atom or whatever. Once it has collapsed the Eigenstates no longer interfer with each other, and a diffraction pattern is not seen. There's nothing in this experiment that requires a person: (cont...)
@stevebee92653 You could set your recording device at the slits, leave the room for several hours, then come back and the result is the same as if you had been there watching it, ergo your presence made no difference. What did make a difference to the outcome of the experiment, as we well know, was the presence of the measuring device, what ever that may have been. Because, this measuring device will have interacted with photons in some way.
@stevebee92653 To me the argument you've just made sounds very similar to the skepticism Anti-realism point of the view; That there is no external objective reality and everything we see/hear/touch etc... is just in our heads, as of course it is. I have no way of knowing I'm not just a brain in a jar and this is all a dream and neither do you, as our cognitive perceptions of the world are all the evidence of it we have.
You said it perfectly - The _Sun_ gives off _electromagnetic radiation_ in the form of _waves/photons_. Therefore, the Sun, electromagetic radiation and waves/particles DO exist even though we haven't percieved it yet or can say it's colorful. Something outside of us has to influence us before we can percieve something. You're only playing with the definitions of light and sound, that's all.
@Ripley747 You saw this vid and you still are not close. That's OK. You can't remove the "US" and "WE"" from the scene, now can you. Until you can you won't get it.
@stevebee92653 I'm really confused now. Us and We? They are the subject and object of the same word (like me and I). Are you intentionally trying to be difficult to understand? I don't mean to sound offensive of obtuse, but SOMETHING has to hit our eyes for us to interpret it. Light waves are leaving the sun as I write this, but it won't reach our eyes (so therefore it won't exist?) for another 8.5 minutes. How does that relate to "us" and "we"?
I am noooooothiiiiiiiiiing aaaaaaaand eeeeeeeeeverythiiiiiiiiing
srsly though the objects are still there as you imply, the waves they send are still there as you say, if we are not there to translate them that doesn't mean they don't exist, what you are holding in your hand right now your brain is translating to you through your senses. that doesn't mean FOR ME it doesn't exist even though my brain isn't interacting with it, it is still translatable despite the fact it isn't being translated.
@mun090 So what I am holding in my hand right now exists for you? And if all of life ceases to exist in the next second, does it then exist for you. Does it exist at all? Did the moon exist FOR YOU ten years before you were born?
The problem I have with it is it's solipsistic nature and complete dismissal of causality.
1. If the universe's existence is hinged upon an observer then:
a. What does that mean for lower animals who have various forms of proto-consciousness like apes, dolphins, and certain species of birds?
b. Does this not also mean that no one else exists? If the universe can't exist without consciousness then how can anyone else exist without yours? Your position seems more like a paradox.
2. How we even arrived at our conscious state is completely dismissed with this world view.
a. We had to evolve in order to arrive at a state capable of self-examination; a feat which is not possible by any logical means if nothing existed before we observed the universe.
There are many things quirky about the universe (such as the wave-function collapse) but we do not yet have a unambiguous model of what it means so the jury is out on this for now imo.
@Di66en6ion How we arrived at this conscious state is something that no person who ever lived knows. Many fool themselves into thinking they know. Everything that exists and occurs does so in our perception. If you saw both vids, and don't agree or get it, fine. I can't clarify any better than the vids. Not worth a long argument anyway.
@stevebee92653 The problem I have is with your definition of what a conscious observer is. You said a conscious observer is someone who can "view, contemplate, and record objects, information, and events". This is done by a causal chain of chemical reactions in your brain. EVERYTHING is chemical, when a species dies it leaves behind its chemical body to be fossilized in strata. Memory can only be defined as a certain arrangement of chemicals. Your statement easily applies to you as it does me.
Apes and dolphins have no concept of what the universe is. They cannot contemplate, or record. People exist in my consciousness, and I in theirs. When I cease to exist nothing will exist FOR ME. Just like nothing existed FOR ME in 1900. But the world was being observed, recorded, and contemplated by other CO's.
@MurderingCow The only reason people consider this a paradox is because of the assumption that they think "consciousness" is what creates existence, which is utterly unfalsifiable. It's a concept they've built up in their minds upon vapid statements and definitions with incoherent links.
now forgive me for being a materialist, but i feel this is a rather egotistical claim on behalf of humankind. our thoughts and all areas of our brain in which thoughts and sensations and everything can be processed are physical. our ability to be conscious surely comes from the billions of years of matter existing that preceded us. from the formulation of our planet to the evolution of life, everything is all connected and has resulted in the world we have today...
is this suggesting that faraway planets and stars visible only through very powerful telescopes didn't exist a few hundred years ago because we hadn't discovered them? because we now know they do, and that they pre-date human existence and such.
the crux of your argument is that without perception there is no existence. that's a big claim. something that is not perceived does not exist. so those stars have only just popped into existence because prior to that they weren't existing?
1. Remember I say the age of the universe is a paradox. Two possible answers, not just one. It APPEARS to be 14.7 BYO.
2. If all of life on earth suddenly ended before the stars you mention were observed, no, they did not exist.
The toughest part for people to catch is that everything occurs in your consciousness as perception. It's an illusion from birth that it's "out there". Out there it's pitch black and dead silent. Sound and visual images are all internal perception.
my main point, which for some reason hasn't registered as being posted is that perception hasn't always existed. the degree of perception which we enjoy is the product of the gradual development of consciousness in organisms over the duration of the existence of life. there was a time when there may only have been single celled organisms. they may have had the least amount of perception of the world as possible, yet that surely doesn't mean the world didn't exist. (see next post)
therefore, where did perception come from if nothing exists without it?
i understand the principles behind what you are suggesting; but i feel that you are taking a great leap from the science behind our perceptions, to the idea that nothing exists without perception. it seems irrational to hold that belief so strongly.
BTW: Single celled organisms don't perceive. They react to stimuli. They don't consider their reactions. Or observe/record. They have no consciousness. Zero.
exactly my point: consciousness developed over time. it didnt just spring into existence. our ability to perceive developed gradually from an inability to perceive. what i'm curious about is whether you believe there was no existence before perception? because surely there had to be existence for perception to come into existence.
also, i am aware that sound is purely our interpretation of vibrations. but these vibrations still exist and have an external cause dont you think?
@adshenshall There is always a conundrum. If nothing exists without a CO, then what was the first CO born in to? Can you have only one CO, since that CO needed a CO to exist? I am aware of these problems, and there is no answer. Just like there is no answer to why the universe is here instead of nothing. Or where it came from. We can only go back so far, then we are stuck. Real stuck.
The vibes exist only because of being observed and recorded. No observer, no vibrations or sound. Nada.
Consciousness developed over time? We don't know that. We have no idea how consciousness formed, or why. Was there an immense one that brought the universe into being? Which came first, consciousness or the universe? Getting metaphysical I know. I want answers just like you.There simply are none that make any sense. I am not religious, so that doesn't give me any answers. I wish I could come up with a theory that fits the facts, but hard as I try, I admit failure. But the hints are sure fun.
i think it peculiar how you suggest: "Consciousness developed over time? We don't know that. We have no idea how consciousness formed, or why". this statement discards evolution + evolutionary psychology, and your suggestion that it could've been created by one supreme consciousness is based on no factual evidence. what confuses me is why you choose to discard evolution; a theory built on 150 years of research, and mountains of peer reviewed material. And instead opt for formulating an...
assumption of the nature of existence on a thought experiment based on highlighting the absurdness of applying quantum superposition to everyday objects. Schrodingers cat experiment is essentially a physical representation of reductio ad absurdum. the whole point of the concept is to make obvious the flaws in the application of quantum mechanics to more complex entities. why do i feel your argument rests on SC? because if you derive it straight from the video, then it is logically invalid. ...
your video suggests that everything we think we know is just a product of our particular way of perceiving the world, which is fine. but you conclude that if no-one is there to perceive something then it does not exist. this is a massive jump. my point about vibrations in a previous post is that perceptions are our own interpretations of external stimuli; as these stimuli are external they dont require human interaction to exist. therefore, they dont require perception. ...
why quantum superposition does not prove your point. an example of QS at the level it was intended is the rotation of an electron. when not observed, an electron is deemed to be spinning both clockwise and anti-clockwise at the same time. when observed, the electron then collapses into one direction or the other. the superposition principle may imply the simultaneous existence of two states at once; but it does NOT imply that without observation neither state exists. ...
from a philosophical perspective, i feel that your premises are correct, but that they dont follow on to your conclusion. your conclusion suggests that if you dont know of somethings existence, then it does not exist for "YOU", therefore it does not exist. i think that you are confusing subjective reality for objective reality. what are your thoughts?
Everything exists in our perception. Even your statement that a vibration is still there if there is no CO is perception. You mentally visualize it being there, and no observer, so you can say it is. You can't get the fact that everything exists in your consciousness.You can't mentally remove yourself.
What color was the sun FOR YOU ten years before you were born? Was there a sun? A moon? Music? Noise? They didn't exist FOR YOU. And if you remove all CO's, all of life, they don't exist.
I say we don't know how consciousness developed. Except for evos, who think they know. They, you, and I don't. Period. If you want to play pretend, have at it. That is what you are doing. You should recognize that fact, but you can't . You, and no person, have/has any factual evidence how consciousness formed. None. Zero.
Peer reviewed material...written by people who don't know, and peered by people who don't either. Mountains of non answers that you are content with.
can you please provide me with your argument for why there is no existence without perception in the form of formal logic please?
i also wonder why you are so quick to rebuke evolution, yet you continually cite schrodingers cat to other posts on this page? why when SC does not illustrate your point? yet you trust in the foundation of knowledge behind it, rather than the foundation of knowledge behind other scientific theories: evolution, the big bang, etc.
(1) You have just completed the circle. Watch the videos. I can't do any better.
(2) You believe that animals selectively dying or being killed, selectively procreating, and non-occurring mutations that form healthy utilitarian tissue formed all of nature? And you wonder why I don't? Why bother asking.
firstly, that's one of the most inaccurate definitions of evolution that i have come across. but that is not the point.
i am only interested in one thing.
i understand the concept of our conception of the 'outside world' being constructed by the physical processes which constitute perception.
please using FORMAL LOGIC, highlight what your premises are that lead you to the conclusion that without COs there would be no existence. if your premises and structure are correct then you'll be right.
if you can demonstrate the truth of your argument effectively through formal logic then you will have convinced me, and for that matter everyone else, since logic is proof.
1. i'm not going to convince you of evolution over the course of a youtube thread. i suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, or What Evolution is by Ernst Mayr. i'd like to drop this point and stick to the matter at hand.
2. if you want a grade then i will give one, just ask. the point of your video, i assume is to illustrate your viewpoint. therefore i'm suggesting it can be illustrated better by including formal logic in order to demonstrate the precise connections between ...
... your premises and your conclusions. thereby, if you can establish the truthfulness of your premises, and the validity of your argument structure, following the rules of logic, then you have proven your suggestions to be true.
i would like to see your argument in formal logic terms. it would convince me and anyone else if it was correct.
Sorry i hadnt replied, my girlfriend visited for the weekend and one has to prioritise. Unfortunately my university library doesnt have this book, nor do google books have a good preview. If you happen to have a link to anywhere i could read it or at least, a good essay on it then i would be happy to give it a go. i have read that it supports the anthropic principle. which, philosophically, is a funny way to view cause and effect...
according to my research, the book has been cited heavily by Harun Yahya and others trying to use some science to disprove other science. but it doesnt seem to hold much merit in academia. btw, i did find this link to a good page on quantum mechanics which tackles the issue of a COs, amongst others; a very detailed introduction that i thought you might be interested in:
its not letting me post links, but if you google: "npl washington edu ti" then it should be top of the list. its called The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
You can get it for a buck or two from Amazon. Either you have to go for the anthropic, or you have to believe that the astounding one in a zillion odds of every force and atom in the universe being just perfect for life is dumb luck. Me, I think the design of matter and the universe supports life, as the universe needs life for it's existence. Symbiosis.
just because two points support each other doesn't make them correct. this may take some time, but i intend to demonstrate to you why the anthropic principle is not a sound way of understanding cause and effect. however, this will be hard with you because you have based your idea of COs partly on the anthropic principle and that philosophical outlook. also because you disagree with evolution. if some of my questions sound silly and simple, please just go along.
also, academia is something i consider to be important. when a professor has dedicated most of his life to research in a certain area, and a paper he produces is held in high regard by other professors in a similar mould, then i can be sure that the content is verifiable and based on solid research and foundations.
anyone with money can write a book supporting their own viewpoint and publish it. Harun Yahya is one of my favourite examples. books filled with lies and twisted science.
for the sake of demonstrating the alternative argument can you hold your theory of COs back for a second? mainly because if the anthropic principle serves to provide foundations for COs then it is logically unsound to use COs to attempt to prove the anthropic principle. consider this as an 'alternative' understanding of the world and lets see how it turns out. i will only suggest physical actions that supporters of the anthropic principle agree upon.
No evo-paper or academic has any idea how life, consciousness, biological systems (heart/lung, visual, bone....) formed. Not a lick. And for you to believe they do is your first stumbling block. Academia means nothing. Groupthink doesn't either. Group psychology is the driving force for academia and evolution. .
My observations are my own. I go by what I see, and what works and is really known. For sure. In the reading materials I use. And in my vids.
Im getting incredibly tired of your double standards. Why do you trust the barely accredited physicist Greenstein when you dismiss academia? If you are basing what you believe to be true or not solely on your own experiences then you are thicker than i thought. I was under the impression that you were basing it on quantum superpositions, or something credible like that. But no. What you are an example of is Descartes Classical Scepticism. Try reading Lockian realism i.e. a philosophy still...
...supported by philosophers today. What you are pushing so hard is weak philosophy dressed up as pseudo-science. And even though these are meant to be YOUR beliefs, developed through YOUR perceptions, when i finally get you to try and spell out YOUR argument in Logical terms, you point me to someone elses book. Why? Because your videos own argument suggests that subjective reality IS objective reality. And without the former we would lack the later. Philosophy, and bad philosophy at that.
As for the anthropic principle. I was going to string this out over a number of posts and really go into depth. Now i cba. The anthropic principle is yet again, a philosophy based upon personal interpretation of science. The initial advocators of the anthropic principle agreed that the big bang created the universe, or at least, that it had a physical existence prior to the existence of humans. They agree that planets were formed, then life arose, then life evolved. Then the philosophy kicks in.
Then they suggest that its not a coincidence that the universe is perfectly geared for our life. Therefore the universe mustve been designed that way. however, sensible people will look chronologically at cause and effect within the universe and also say: its not a coincidence. We are a product of our universe, therefore we will always appear to be perfectly suited to it. If we werent we would never have existed.
The universe came first. Us second. Therefore it is not suited to us. We are suited to it. water is perfect for fish; yet we do not suggest that water was designed for fish. Fish evolved for water. Fish that cant survive in water will not live. Genes that couldnt survive in our universe wouldnt exist.
DNA comes from RNA, which comes from Amino Acids, which comes from the formation of complex compounds, which come from basic molecules found in the universe, which come from the universe. We are a product of the universe so of course we are perfectly suited to it. the anthropic principle is backwards reasoning.
But of course you disagree with evolution and suggest no-one has ever published any proof or anything of merit. Judging from your videos you clearly have a basic understanding of biology, yet you lack an understanding of the principles of evolution. Two very different things. I have already cited books earlier in this thread. I suggest you read them. And read the paper on quantum mechanics to demonstrate rational interpretation of quantum superpositions.
Your ideas presented in this video are based not on fact, but on personal philosophies. I showed how various scientific theories do not support your conclusions, and showed how your argument structure means that your premises do not follow on to your conclusions. I hate to piss on your idea. But i do it only because of the degree to which you present this as fact, and anyone who disagrees is wrong or too dumb to understand. COs being necessary for existence is philosophy.
i wont reply again. i'm leaving the thread, hopefully never to return. but i cant guarantee it. thanks for the debate. i dont care enough any more to devote time to it. you are stuck in your views and you seemingly want to block out reason and objectivity in favour of subjectivity. although, this was fun while it lasted. many thanks, adam x
Sorry, this vid is based on physiology and logic. With a hint of quantum mechanics. So you don't understand or accept the concept. Fine. Matters no to me.
Re: piss on my idea. This is obviously not my idea. But certainly thinking it out it makes tons of sense. Your problem is you think you are smarter than you are. You are so enamored with your own intelligence you go right past a very easy and fun concept.
I think I see your point, and I do see a difference between reception and perception. We receive EMR with a certain wavelength which our brain turns into "colors" by the combinations of signals which travel through the optic nerve.
But you change this line of thought midway and use it to exclude ALL life - which cannot not "perceive light". But the perception is not needed for the existence, only the interaction or response which does not require a conscious observer.
Imagine if you will an organism that cannot hear, see, smell, touch or sense texture, sense warm hot cold, has no taste sense, is incapable of thought or recording. What exists in this organism's perception? What "interaction" would this organism have?
I am with you 100% on perception (as opposed to bird evolution where we might be <1%) But I'm saying living creature do interact with their invironment. Chlorophyll is a molecule that changes in the presence of certain wavelengths of EMR. the plant does not think about it or "perceive it" Different pigments respond to certain "colors" of the light. Without it the plant would not be able to survive.
Thank you, but the point is you're saying if all humans ceased to be matter itself would not exist? You said "no life" at 4:05. i was making that distinction that life could exist without our perceiving it. You're posing the great philosophical question of existence. This is why you did all those drugs in the 60's.
Did your parents exist before you were born? Does novacaine really make the "pain" go away?
You are not asking good questions. Everything you experience is an illusion that you have had since birth. You are constantly being fooled. Everything is in your perception and consciousness. Not "out there". No consciousness, no existence. And if you don't get it, that's OK. Doesn't matter. To tiring to keep arguing. Google Schrodinger's cat.
Parents of course were here. They are CO's themselves, and they have been recorded by other CO's. Novacain? Not pertinent. You are not close.
The illusion is that everything looks like it is "out there", outside of you brain. In reality, everything you experience is made up of perception of biological codes that run up a particular sensory nerve (optic for visual images, auditory for sound, eg). Sound seems like it comes from whatever made the sound. In reality, the world outside of a conscious sound equipped observer is dead silent. The sound is perception in the auditory cortex. THAT is the illusion. Sound is manufactured by a CO.
You are trying too hard to "win" for some reason. This is simple physiology and not some complex mystical mumbo jumbo. Ten years before you were born, did your parents exist FOR YOU? What color was the sun FOR YOU? What was the sound of a drum? Of course they didn't exist until you were born & gained consciousness.
You know the cat? Do you disagree with Schrodinger?
The illusion is that your parents exist "out there" when they really exist as perception "inside U".
This objection is not addressing the real claim made but I disagree on point 6a and 7b.
The claim there is no images in the brain is not entirely true. It can be shown that neural activity can be mapped to images. I am not claiming this happens in the brain, but it is likely. Vision is a well understood engineering problem and this is what happens in such systems. As I cant paint pictures of sound, smell, etc I can only say that a similar mapping is going on with those perceptions as well.
Can't discuss with you when your information is so incorrect. So I don't quite know what your point is. Or if you are arguing the vid. Try Googling Schrodinger's cat.
Since you did not answer my question it is hard to know what you did not understand. I do not claim there is any images "out there", because there is no such stuff "out there".
If we call what happens on the retina an image then it follows there must be a map of this image in the visual part of the brain.
Sorry, no "map" in the cortex. Code moves up the optic nerve to the visual cortex. 130 M retinal cells transfer the code to 12 M optic neurons. The visual cortex reads code. And we perceive images from that code. But we sure don't have access to them. And we never will.
I have no idea what your point is. What does that have to do with the vid? I am trying to be patient.
The video claims at point 6a there is no images in the brain, I claim this is not entirely true. It is known that images representation occurs in the primary and secondary visual cortical areas .
My claim do not involve any form of consciousness experience here, only that a mapping to an image exists in the brain and that we can decode this mapping as images.
This image decoding has been performed by Yoichi Miyawak in a research lab and the result has been published in the journal Neuron.
Y. Miyawaki, et al. Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders, Neuron, Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages 915-929
In your video you ask any commenter to state what claim they my like to dispute and why. I am disputing a claim in the video, claim 6a (and 7b). I have stated what claim I dispute two times earlier and I have explained why I do not agree. If you still do not understand what my claim is, then I need some input her from you what you find unclear as I can not guess your thoughts.
You think there ARE images in the visual cortex like a screen? Do these images have color? Light? If you could dissect a brain that was viewing images, would you see light , color, and the visual image the person is seeing?
No I did not say there is a "screen" in the visual cortex, I defined an images as whatever is decoded on the retina - per definition this "images" is the in brain then.
This "images" is then coded in V1 and V2, this
information can decoded and sent back to the retina, and then the very same encoding in V1 and V2 occurs, and not surprisingly the brain/mind see the very same image again.
I know this is true because I can see things (in my mind) or do you want to claim I am blind as well. ;)
The point is, in order to see an image there must be an image to see. The next point is, this image does ONLY exists in the consciousness mind. The third point, is this state of mind is the state of the brain, therefore it is concluded there is an images in the brain.
You ask if the image has color, well take a good look at the image. Does it appear to have color? If it does, then yes it has color. Does the image has a bird? Well take a look again. Do you see a bird? Well then it has a bird.
How do we know that things remains unchanged when we do not look at it?
The answer is we assume it to be so because we can not say that we have observed an unobserved thing to be unchanged. There is more than one true description of unobserved things, and there is also a class of equivalent description of unobserved things and they all can be used equally well.
This concept can not prove qualia as it is just another equivalent description no more true or false than any other description.
I am disappointed in you. But maybe sometime when you are walking along thinking about something else, you will get a brain flash, and get it. I don't have high hopes though.
My comments were @stevebee92653
theloosegoose333 2 months ago
And speaking of (time) it is utterly easy for me to see time as being the conscious experience of (timeless) motion -and this leaves me wondering what time is doing in Einstein’s math equations as an external component (with or without consciousness.) We can think of the universe before it was experienced but yet again its consciousness doing the work. And time is not a number it is a an experience.
theloosegoose333 2 months ago
@theloosegoose333 Time is experienced by CO's. Without CO's, there cannot be time. Which seems crazy. But that must be the case. Time didn't exist for you ten years before you were born. And if there were no human CO's time could not exist. Time is just as symbiotic as the universe. Without time we could not exist, and time could not exist without us.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
And so when someone writes on one of those posters that show two people looking up at the nighttime sky, and one says the other “it makes you feel really small” they don’t realize that they are the “big” of all that seemingly endless stuff because they are the conscious (part of it) the observer.
theloosegoose333 2 months ago
@theloosegoose333 I love this thought. A fun one. And of course is there a CO in the universe looking back? If so, that CO must also be bringing the universe into existence as well.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653
I think that it cannot be any other way, as in other words an apple comes from an apple tree, and a cognizant (fruit) comes from a mindful tree (or aware) universal field.
And either that or we ignore the examples we have to work with and ask answers of someone that ignores these facts, and yet I will not, and that is why I do not, do that.
I say we are the fruit of a conscious tree.
theloosegoose333 2 months ago
You have been reading my mind from way back when regarding my thoughts on the conscious observer being of the utmost importance to the reality of the universe. Without observation it certainly does not observe itself.
theloosegoose333 2 months ago
Everything is conscious and self aware to an extent, this is what we have been told for thousands of years by those we ignorantly call "primitive." Nice video.
nduri2 5 months ago
@nduri2 Thanks!
stevebee92653 5 months ago
It's not a matter of "getting it" it's a matter of there not being any reason whatsoever to believe it.
This suggests that no aspect of our physical universe existed until a CO discovered it. Pluto didn't exist until the early 18th century and thus Pluto's 3 moons didn't exist until the 20th and 21st century. How many objects in space have been captured on film only to be discovered as planets, asteroids and comets years later.
RTyp06 8 months ago
@RTyp06 It IS a matter of getting it, and you don't. What you do not get is that everything that exists does so in the perception of a conscious observer. I don't care whether you get it or not. It doesn't matter a lick in your life or mine if you do or do not.
stevebee92653 8 months ago
@stevebee92653
If anything exists only from then a CO percieves it, does this mean that we are all perceiving the "World", that came into existence from the FIRST of all CO'S ?
If yes, could we call this first CO god ?
Razorwind9211 1 year ago
Comment removed
Razorwind9211 1 year ago
God is the rest, and only believing in him can we enter into that rest. The rest from trying to figure it out. It's accepting him that we accept his creation. Something miraculous happened in my mind/soul/brain when I accepted God into my heart/mind/brain/being. I entered into his rest, and didn't loose one once of logic.
onetocome 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 The only explanation i've heard thus far for"far too perfect to be random" argument is the multiverse theory. That our universe is one of many and the conditions were perfect because it was programmed to expand and develop that way- similar to (though not comparable to) the way a cell is.
russboone84 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 mean that a vast conscious intelligence that created the big bang (or the so called 'particle' that exploded into the big bang) didn't. Who knows? I certainly don't have all the answers. Maybe (as some physicists believe) the universe as self aware. And then again there are some scientists (including a few that created/proposed the big bang theory)that now believe that consciousness preceded the big bang, as the condition were FAR TOO Perfect to be 'random'. The only other
russboone84 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Perceived in the material universe. Also, science is proveing that each cell is conscious, and possibly even atoms as they too exchange information with one another! Which is what the universe can be described as. vibrational information of different wavelengths. Science is also showing that our senses are only perceiving 0.00012% of these vibrations! All that we "see" isn't all that is there- by any means. Just because we haven't observed it to bring it into existence doesn't
russboone84 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I believe life is eternal and goes on forever repeating itself in a fractal holographic manner. The part i somewhat disagree with is the co-dependence. In this universe-yes. However I feel that outside of this universe or perhaps in other dimensions consciousness can exist without matter. The thing that baffles me is the number of proven near death experiences in which a dead person observes everything in a purely conscious state- perhaps in a dimension that cannot be
russboone84 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 And i believe the observer 13.7 billion years ago at the moment of the big bang was it's creator. A vast conscious intelligence beyond our comprehension. And if not then what created the particle that exploded into the big bang in the first place??Did it create itself?? Thus the paradoxical chicken and egg debate rises again.And it's because life is a fractal hologram that repeats itself.Connected in dimensions we can't perceive with our 5 senses.
russboone84 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I understand exactly what you're saying stevebee. Whether it can be proven or not, it still makes perfect sense..
russboone84 1 year ago
@russboone84 I can't argue with your ideas. The notion that the universe itself is "conscious" is one I have toyed with as well. It seems to fit a logical model while it is also pure fantasy. But good fantasy. Thanks for the intelligent and interesting comment. I wish there were more of these.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
"And if no life existed at all, the universe and everything in it would not exist either"
Sigh.
Hey steve, good to see your up to your usual charades. Theyre hilarious in fact.
Gee let me guess, I dont understand the premise. Right?
Same old.
I am just wondering, what do YOU define as a "conscious observer"?
Are homosapiens the only "conscious observers"?
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago
@ChickenHawk110 Try watching the vid. And concentrate. sigh
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@ChickenHawk110 Even cells are "conscious"in their own right. They too "observe" their environment. Science is proving that EVEN ATOMS ARE CONSCIOUS in the way that they exchange information (though conscious in a way that we aren't, or rather in a way that we don't understand). Read my response to stevebee below.
russboone84 1 year ago
Sigh. Your not trying very hard are you stevebee?
If you didnt exist, EMR, energy waves through air, would all STILL exist.
Matter. Gravity. Space. Would all STILL exist.
Sigh.
Your akin to saying as soon as you decease, than the universe ceases to exist because you cant percieve it.
Laugh. Out. Loud.
Of course, feel free to spam your usual screeds about "not understanding".
You never did answer my question about the sun/earth did you stevebee?
Same old. Same old.
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago
@ChickenHawk110 Chicken is BACK! And he still doesn't understand. Wow. I actually thought you might evolve some grey matter by this time, but no. Sigh.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@ChickenHawk110 If you die or didn't exist, the universe wouldn't exist FOR YOU. Now would it? Which shows you don't understand. What was the universe FOR YOU ten years before you were born chickenhawk? Ask yourself that and see if that helps you figure it out.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Stop being such a smug prude steve. Some things NEVER change huh?
Your (well its not yours now is it) premise isnt complicated, its just a thought experiment that doesnt hold any value in reality.
I am more interested in this gem:
"And if no life existed at all, the universe and everything in it would not exist either"
We have evidence that implies that the universe DID exist, in one way or another, before any CO's existed.
So, now who doesnt understand??
Sigh indeed...
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago
@ChickenHawk110 You sure sigh a lot for a know-it-all. (1) Get a dictionary (2) Look up "paradox" (3) Do you have any friends? If so, do they enjoy the fact that you know everything?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Wow.
I WAS discussing the video, and your (well...Greenstiens) premise.
Isnt it funny how you note on your hilarious site "please restrict your comments to the material in the video", yet here you are, bailing out of the hole that you that you have dug for yourself with benign jibs about "being a know it all". Where is that on the video?
Not the first time you have behaved in such a hypocritical manner is it steve?
Yep, heres another sigh for your juvenile antics.
"Sigh".
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago
You are saying that nothing exists outside of our perception. But that's not true. Electromagnetic radiation exists outside of our perception. Airwaves exist, whether we are around to interpret them as noise or not.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll If there is ZERO conscious observers, sorry, they don't exist. You can't remove yourself from the scene. You visually imagine them being there anyway. You need to go one more level. You probably can't.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I can imagine whatever you want. Doesn't make it true. Your video says 1a. The sun gives of electromagnetic radiation. I'll agree that EMR is not light, color, or visual images. But what makes you think it isn't EMR?
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Color, light, and visual images are EMR which is coded then perceived by our retinas, optic nerves, and visual cortices. Maybe I don't quite get your question.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Well its like you just said. EMR is coded and THEN perceived as visual images. The way you just said it, EMR exists before it is perceived. So it seems there is something real beyond our 5 senses.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Good thinking. But, again, you can't get rid of the "perceiver". The EMR exists, can be recorded, and measured because of the "perceiver" in your comment.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
Okay. But this argument is paradoxical. IF you can prove that nothing exists without a conscious observer, you are still basing that on conscious observations. You are using science to prove that science is an illusion. So it would seem that your conclusion is also an illusion.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll I would use "perception" over "illusion". But you are right. The "conclusion illusion!"
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 So, you are saying that reality is consciousness. Does this mean the consciousness is eternal?
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll Reality is perceived by our consciousness. Mathematically, no, nothing can be infinite.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 So are you saying reality exists external of consciousness? Or is consciousness the only "place" that reality exists...
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll They are codependent. They cannot exist without each other. Which makes one wonder about the first CO. The universe had to exist to bring the first CO into existence. The first CO brought the universe into existence. So there is another chicken and egg problem.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
I would only take issue with your conclusion here sir. Could you please elaborate for me how you come to the conclusion: If we dont exist, the universe doesnt exist, given that sound, light, smell etc.. are mearly perception? Isnt it still true that the tree exists, and did in fact fall, regardless of wether someone was there to see or hear it?
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball Remember I say this is a paradox. The universe appears to be one age, and can only be another due to the fact that everything that exists does so in our perception. Which part of this vid do you disagree with?
Does sound exist outside the perception of a CO? Does light? Did that tree exist FOR YOU ten years before you were born? What was the sun? What color was the ocean? Was there one?
If you don't get it from this vid, you aren't going to get it at all.
And final answer: NO
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Yes I remmber. I disagree however that everythin exists only within our perceptions. Light exists only within my head yes, but outside of my head there is still the electromagnetic radiation, and the source of said radiation. The tree exists independent of wether I percieve it or not. Elsewise you wouldnt exist to me, if I understand your argument correctly. Most likely yes, the sun existed as well as the tree, before I was born. I have asked my parents, they confirmed it did.
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball You don't translate what I am saying. I said FOR YOU ten years before YOU were born. Your parents are CO recorders, and have recorded the tree for you. Just like we know the Civil War occurred because there were CO recorders. But if there was no life whatsoever, there are no observers or recorders. No perception where that tree can exist. No tree. No fall. No noise. No color, light, or visual images. No odor. No texture. Not taste. Nothing.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I understand that the light and sound are in our heads, but can you please explain to me how that translates to the source of the input not existing if I didnt recieve its input?
arktheball 1 year ago
@arktheball Everything that exists does so in the perception of a CO. I can't do any more than these vids and this comment.. If you don't get it, time to move on. Try reading "The Symbiotic Universe".
stevebee92653 1 year ago
I agree with everything on here except at 4:02. You're saying no life = no consciousness = no universe because everything is in our perception. Do you know why it's in our perception? Because it exists. Something must exist BEFOREHAND in order for it to be percieved! Our senses can only pick up what exists to be picked up. If that's not true, then that's the definition of an illusion, not reality.
Moshikashitenai 1 year ago
@Moshikashitenai You are correct and what you are saying is part of the paradox. CO's need a universe to be born into and to initially observe. So the universe HAD to exist before CO's.
But, since the universe exists only in the consciousness/perception of a CO, the universe requires observation for it's existence. Observation brings the universe into existence. Which is what the book "Symbiotic Universe" is about. Both need each other, if you know symbiosis.
And that is why it's a paradox.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Okay, well if a CO needs a universe to exist, then let's say that it doesn't. A CO needs to exist to be able to observed, right? Let's say that there's only one CO. How did that CO come to be? It has to be observed. That's just like my eyeball analogy. eyes exist, even though they can't see themselves. What I'm struggling with is that if there's CO's and a universe, and they are mutually dependent, then why and how do either of them exist? THAT'S the real paradox imho.
Moshikashitenai 1 year ago
@Moshikashitenai Your eyeball thing is not a good example. You are stuck on visual observation.
You are right. That is the real paradox. I wish I could answer all questions, but I cannot. I would be worshiped and get all kinds of Nobel's. We have to go with what is here now, and how it operates. And try to figure it's origins as best we can. The origin of everything is still the greatest Puzzle ever known to mankind.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@Moshikashitenai I don't have the answer for the first minute of existence for the universe and man. Who or what was here at what split second? Did observation occur gradually? And since the universe appears 13.7 BYO, how does that fit in? How was the universe first observed? It's just another part of this fantastic Puzzle that is so much fun to think about, and so impossible to solve. I don't pretend to have an answer. You have come a long way to at least understanding what I am saying.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
if you were going to create a life form, how els would you let him percieve his world?
rick3229 1 year ago
@rick3229 The way it was done is ingenious beyond imagination. How else? Is there any "else"? A multiple choice?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
good explanation, I liked the 1st vid
mre521 1 year ago
@mre521 Thanks! Glad someone got it!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Here's a question for you;
So are you arguing that EM waves out of the visible light spectrum (X-Rays for example) and sound out of our hearing range (ultrasound) don't exsists?
AceBean27 1 year ago
@AceBean27 Of course not. They are observed and recorded by CO's. The definition of a CO is in my first vid: observes, records, and contemplates.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Oh, all the quotes from physicists you use I thought you were arguing this from a quantum mechanical point of view, my bad. This is a philosophical argument.
Of course colour only exsists in our heads, and a blue chair is only blue or a chair if I or something looks at it and says "hey that's blue and it's a chair".
But the act of looking at something and defining it as a "blue chair" doesn't change the physical properties of it nor the fact that it exsists at all.
AceBean27 1 year ago
@AceBean27 The act of looking at the chair brings it into existence for the looker. This is quantum mechanical, and physiological. And if you want, philosophical. This is how things (we) work Everything that exists must exist in the perception of a CO. Everything that seems "out there" is really in our cortices. Our brains. The "out there" is an illusion.
Re: an observer changing the state of matter: Check "The Infamous Double Slit Experiment" if you're not familiar with it.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Yes I've done the experiement and done the maths behind it. The young's double slit experiment has nothing to do with conscious observers. It's the interaction with the photons that causes the superposition of states to collapse, whether from a person or a stray atom or whatever. Once it has collapsed the Eigenstates no longer interfer with each other, and a diffraction pattern is not seen. There's nothing in this experiment that requires a person: (cont...)
AceBean27 1 year ago
@AceBean27 You are lucky to have done the experiment. How strange. Yes, it is a measuring device and not a CO.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 You could set your recording device at the slits, leave the room for several hours, then come back and the result is the same as if you had been there watching it, ergo your presence made no difference. What did make a difference to the outcome of the experiment, as we well know, was the presence of the measuring device, what ever that may have been. Because, this measuring device will have interacted with photons in some way.
AceBean27 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 To me the argument you've just made sounds very similar to the skepticism Anti-realism point of the view; That there is no external objective reality and everything we see/hear/touch etc... is just in our heads, as of course it is. I have no way of knowing I'm not just a brain in a jar and this is all a dream and neither do you, as our cognitive perceptions of the world are all the evidence of it we have.
AceBean27 1 year ago
@AceBean27 Roger that.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
You said it perfectly - The _Sun_ gives off _electromagnetic radiation_ in the form of _waves/photons_. Therefore, the Sun, electromagetic radiation and waves/particles DO exist even though we haven't percieved it yet or can say it's colorful. Something outside of us has to influence us before we can percieve something. You're only playing with the definitions of light and sound, that's all.
Ripley747 1 year ago
@Ripley747 You saw this vid and you still are not close. That's OK. You can't remove the "US" and "WE"" from the scene, now can you. Until you can you won't get it.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I'm really confused now. Us and We? They are the subject and object of the same word (like me and I). Are you intentionally trying to be difficult to understand? I don't mean to sound offensive of obtuse, but SOMETHING has to hit our eyes for us to interpret it. Light waves are leaving the sun as I write this, but it won't reach our eyes (so therefore it won't exist?) for another 8.5 minutes. How does that relate to "us" and "we"?
Ripley747 1 year ago
I am noooooothiiiiiiiiiing aaaaaaaand eeeeeeeeeverythiiiiiiiiing
srsly though the objects are still there as you imply, the waves they send are still there as you say, if we are not there to translate them that doesn't mean they don't exist, what you are holding in your hand right now your brain is translating to you through your senses. that doesn't mean FOR ME it doesn't exist even though my brain isn't interacting with it, it is still translatable despite the fact it isn't being translated.
mun090 1 year ago
@mun090 So what I am holding in my hand right now exists for you? And if all of life ceases to exist in the next second, does it then exist for you. Does it exist at all? Did the moon exist FOR YOU ten years before you were born?
stevebee92653 1 year ago
The problem I have with it is it's solipsistic nature and complete dismissal of causality.
1. If the universe's existence is hinged upon an observer then:
a. What does that mean for lower animals who have various forms of proto-consciousness like apes, dolphins, and certain species of birds?
b. Does this not also mean that no one else exists? If the universe can't exist without consciousness then how can anyone else exist without yours? Your position seems more like a paradox.
Di66en6ion 1 year ago
2. How we even arrived at our conscious state is completely dismissed with this world view.
a. We had to evolve in order to arrive at a state capable of self-examination; a feat which is not possible by any logical means if nothing existed before we observed the universe.
There are many things quirky about the universe (such as the wave-function collapse) but we do not yet have a unambiguous model of what it means so the jury is out on this for now imo.
Di66en6ion 1 year ago
Also, I think this position is based on rhetoric more than logic when you inject fuzzy tautological words like 'consciousness' into the mix.
Di66en6ion 1 year ago
@Di66en6ion How we arrived at this conscious state is something that no person who ever lived knows. Many fool themselves into thinking they know. Everything that exists and occurs does so in our perception. If you saw both vids, and don't agree or get it, fine. I can't clarify any better than the vids. Not worth a long argument anyway.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 The problem I have is with your definition of what a conscious observer is. You said a conscious observer is someone who can "view, contemplate, and record objects, information, and events". This is done by a causal chain of chemical reactions in your brain. EVERYTHING is chemical, when a species dies it leaves behind its chemical body to be fossilized in strata. Memory can only be defined as a certain arrangement of chemicals. Your statement easily applies to you as it does me.
Di66en6ion 1 year ago
@Di66en6ion My position IS a paradox.
Apes and dolphins have no concept of what the universe is. They cannot contemplate, or record. People exist in my consciousness, and I in theirs. When I cease to exist nothing will exist FOR ME. Just like nothing existed FOR ME in 1900. But the world was being observed, recorded, and contemplated by other CO's.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Every little piece of this universe is observing every other piece of this universe, for it is all one, introspection...paradox resolved.
vg543 1 year ago
Comment removed
MurderingCow 1 year ago
@vg543 Matter, the universe, space and time are not conscious and cannot observe themselves. Ergo, the paradox resumes.
MurderingCow 1 year ago
@MurderingCow The only reason people consider this a paradox is because of the assumption that they think "consciousness" is what creates existence, which is utterly unfalsifiable. It's a concept they've built up in their minds upon vapid statements and definitions with incoherent links.
Di66en6ion 1 year ago
now forgive me for being a materialist, but i feel this is a rather egotistical claim on behalf of humankind. our thoughts and all areas of our brain in which thoughts and sensations and everything can be processed are physical. our ability to be conscious surely comes from the billions of years of matter existing that preceded us. from the formulation of our planet to the evolution of life, everything is all connected and has resulted in the world we have today...
adshenshall 2 years ago
is this suggesting that faraway planets and stars visible only through very powerful telescopes didn't exist a few hundred years ago because we hadn't discovered them? because we now know they do, and that they pre-date human existence and such.
the crux of your argument is that without perception there is no existence. that's a big claim. something that is not perceived does not exist. so those stars have only just popped into existence because prior to that they weren't existing?
adshenshall 2 years ago
@adshenshall
1. Remember I say the age of the universe is a paradox. Two possible answers, not just one. It APPEARS to be 14.7 BYO.
2. If all of life on earth suddenly ended before the stars you mention were observed, no, they did not exist.
The toughest part for people to catch is that everything occurs in your consciousness as perception. It's an illusion from birth that it's "out there". Out there it's pitch black and dead silent. Sound and visual images are all internal perception.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
my main point, which for some reason hasn't registered as being posted is that perception hasn't always existed. the degree of perception which we enjoy is the product of the gradual development of consciousness in organisms over the duration of the existence of life. there was a time when there may only have been single celled organisms. they may have had the least amount of perception of the world as possible, yet that surely doesn't mean the world didn't exist. (see next post)
adshenshall 2 years ago
therefore, where did perception come from if nothing exists without it?
i understand the principles behind what you are suggesting; but i feel that you are taking a great leap from the science behind our perceptions, to the idea that nothing exists without perception. it seems irrational to hold that belief so strongly.
adshenshall 2 years ago
OK, to clarify.
Do you get that sound does not exist outside of the perception (auditory cortex) of a CO?
That visual images don't either? Outside of the visual cortex?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
BTW: Single celled organisms don't perceive. They react to stimuli. They don't consider their reactions. Or observe/record. They have no consciousness. Zero.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
exactly my point: consciousness developed over time. it didnt just spring into existence. our ability to perceive developed gradually from an inability to perceive. what i'm curious about is whether you believe there was no existence before perception? because surely there had to be existence for perception to come into existence.
also, i am aware that sound is purely our interpretation of vibrations. but these vibrations still exist and have an external cause dont you think?
adshenshall 2 years ago
@adshenshall There is always a conundrum. If nothing exists without a CO, then what was the first CO born in to? Can you have only one CO, since that CO needed a CO to exist? I am aware of these problems, and there is no answer. Just like there is no answer to why the universe is here instead of nothing. Or where it came from. We can only go back so far, then we are stuck. Real stuck.
The vibes exist only because of being observed and recorded. No observer, no vibrations or sound. Nada.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
2
Consciousness developed over time? We don't know that. We have no idea how consciousness formed, or why. Was there an immense one that brought the universe into being? Which came first, consciousness or the universe? Getting metaphysical I know. I want answers just like you.There simply are none that make any sense. I am not religious, so that doesn't give me any answers. I wish I could come up with a theory that fits the facts, but hard as I try, I admit failure. But the hints are sure fun.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
i think it peculiar how you suggest: "Consciousness developed over time? We don't know that. We have no idea how consciousness formed, or why". this statement discards evolution + evolutionary psychology, and your suggestion that it could've been created by one supreme consciousness is based on no factual evidence. what confuses me is why you choose to discard evolution; a theory built on 150 years of research, and mountains of peer reviewed material. And instead opt for formulating an...
adshenshall 2 years ago
assumption of the nature of existence on a thought experiment based on highlighting the absurdness of applying quantum superposition to everyday objects. Schrodingers cat experiment is essentially a physical representation of reductio ad absurdum. the whole point of the concept is to make obvious the flaws in the application of quantum mechanics to more complex entities. why do i feel your argument rests on SC? because if you derive it straight from the video, then it is logically invalid. ...
adshenshall 2 years ago
your video suggests that everything we think we know is just a product of our particular way of perceiving the world, which is fine. but you conclude that if no-one is there to perceive something then it does not exist. this is a massive jump. my point about vibrations in a previous post is that perceptions are our own interpretations of external stimuli; as these stimuli are external they dont require human interaction to exist. therefore, they dont require perception. ...
adshenshall 2 years ago
why quantum superposition does not prove your point. an example of QS at the level it was intended is the rotation of an electron. when not observed, an electron is deemed to be spinning both clockwise and anti-clockwise at the same time. when observed, the electron then collapses into one direction or the other. the superposition principle may imply the simultaneous existence of two states at once; but it does NOT imply that without observation neither state exists. ...
adshenshall 2 years ago
from a philosophical perspective, i feel that your premises are correct, but that they dont follow on to your conclusion. your conclusion suggests that if you dont know of somethings existence, then it does not exist for "YOU", therefore it does not exist. i think that you are confusing subjective reality for objective reality. what are your thoughts?
adshenshall 2 years ago
Everything exists in our perception. Even your statement that a vibration is still there if there is no CO is perception. You mentally visualize it being there, and no observer, so you can say it is. You can't get the fact that everything exists in your consciousness.You can't mentally remove yourself.
What color was the sun FOR YOU ten years before you were born? Was there a sun? A moon? Music? Noise? They didn't exist FOR YOU. And if you remove all CO's, all of life, they don't exist.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I say we don't know how consciousness developed. Except for evos, who think they know. They, you, and I don't. Period. If you want to play pretend, have at it. That is what you are doing. You should recognize that fact, but you can't . You, and no person, have/has any factual evidence how consciousness formed. None. Zero.
Peer reviewed material...written by people who don't know, and peered by people who don't either. Mountains of non answers that you are content with.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
can you please provide me with your argument for why there is no existence without perception in the form of formal logic please?
i also wonder why you are so quick to rebuke evolution, yet you continually cite schrodingers cat to other posts on this page? why when SC does not illustrate your point? yet you trust in the foundation of knowledge behind it, rather than the foundation of knowledge behind other scientific theories: evolution, the big bang, etc.
adshenshall 2 years ago
(1) You have just completed the circle. Watch the videos. I can't do any better.
(2) You believe that animals selectively dying or being killed, selectively procreating, and non-occurring mutations that form healthy utilitarian tissue formed all of nature? And you wonder why I don't? Why bother asking.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
firstly, that's one of the most inaccurate definitions of evolution that i have come across. but that is not the point.
i am only interested in one thing.
i understand the concept of our conception of the 'outside world' being constructed by the physical processes which constitute perception.
please using FORMAL LOGIC, highlight what your premises are that lead you to the conclusion that without COs there would be no existence. if your premises and structure are correct then you'll be right.
adshenshall 2 years ago
if you can demonstrate the truth of your argument effectively through formal logic then you will have convinced me, and for that matter everyone else, since logic is proof.
adshenshall 2 years ago
(1) Inaccurate? How so?
(2) Is this an assignment? Do I get a grade?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
1. i'm not going to convince you of evolution over the course of a youtube thread. i suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, or What Evolution is by Ernst Mayr. i'd like to drop this point and stick to the matter at hand.
2. if you want a grade then i will give one, just ask. the point of your video, i assume is to illustrate your viewpoint. therefore i'm suggesting it can be illustrated better by including formal logic in order to demonstrate the precise connections between ...
adshenshall 2 years ago
... your premises and your conclusions. thereby, if you can establish the truthfulness of your premises, and the validity of your argument structure, following the rules of logic, then you have proven your suggestions to be true.
i would like to see your argument in formal logic terms. it would convince me and anyone else if it was correct.
adshenshall 2 years ago
(1) In other words, nothing is wrong with my take.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@adshenshall
Go to 4:32 in the vid. Watch and listen.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Sorry i hadnt replied, my girlfriend visited for the weekend and one has to prioritise. Unfortunately my university library doesnt have this book, nor do google books have a good preview. If you happen to have a link to anywhere i could read it or at least, a good essay on it then i would be happy to give it a go. i have read that it supports the anthropic principle. which, philosophically, is a funny way to view cause and effect...
adshenshall 1 year ago
according to my research, the book has been cited heavily by Harun Yahya and others trying to use some science to disprove other science. but it doesnt seem to hold much merit in academia. btw, i did find this link to a good page on quantum mechanics which tackles the issue of a COs, amongst others; a very detailed introduction that i thought you might be interested in:
adshenshall 1 year ago
it wont let me post it ??????? i'll try again tomorrow, hopefully it will work then
adshenshall 1 year ago
its not letting me post links, but if you google: "npl washington edu ti" then it should be top of the list. its called The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
adshenshall 1 year ago
"Doesn't hold much merit in academia" has no meaning. Unless you automatically use academia for your thinking. Which most/all evos do.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
You can get it for a buck or two from Amazon. Either you have to go for the anthropic, or you have to believe that the astounding one in a zillion odds of every force and atom in the universe being just perfect for life is dumb luck. Me, I think the design of matter and the universe supports life, as the universe needs life for it's existence. Symbiosis.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
just because two points support each other doesn't make them correct. this may take some time, but i intend to demonstrate to you why the anthropic principle is not a sound way of understanding cause and effect. however, this will be hard with you because you have based your idea of COs partly on the anthropic principle and that philosophical outlook. also because you disagree with evolution. if some of my questions sound silly and simple, please just go along.
adshenshall 1 year ago
also, academia is something i consider to be important. when a professor has dedicated most of his life to research in a certain area, and a paper he produces is held in high regard by other professors in a similar mould, then i can be sure that the content is verifiable and based on solid research and foundations.
anyone with money can write a book supporting their own viewpoint and publish it. Harun Yahya is one of my favourite examples. books filled with lies and twisted science.
adshenshall 1 year ago
for the sake of demonstrating the alternative argument can you hold your theory of COs back for a second? mainly because if the anthropic principle serves to provide foundations for COs then it is logically unsound to use COs to attempt to prove the anthropic principle. consider this as an 'alternative' understanding of the world and lets see how it turns out. i will only suggest physical actions that supporters of the anthropic principle agree upon.
adshenshall 1 year ago
ok, so first question:
do you agree that the big bang started our universe? and that laws, forces, and matter all arrived from this first explosion?
adshenshall 1 year ago
@adshenshall
Far as we know, sure.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@adshenshall
No evo-paper or academic has any idea how life, consciousness, biological systems (heart/lung, visual, bone....) formed. Not a lick. And for you to believe they do is your first stumbling block. Academia means nothing. Groupthink doesn't either. Group psychology is the driving force for academia and evolution. .
My observations are my own. I go by what I see, and what works and is really known. For sure. In the reading materials I use. And in my vids.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
Im getting incredibly tired of your double standards. Why do you trust the barely accredited physicist Greenstein when you dismiss academia? If you are basing what you believe to be true or not solely on your own experiences then you are thicker than i thought. I was under the impression that you were basing it on quantum superpositions, or something credible like that. But no. What you are an example of is Descartes Classical Scepticism. Try reading Lockian realism i.e. a philosophy still...
adshenshall 1 year ago
...supported by philosophers today. What you are pushing so hard is weak philosophy dressed up as pseudo-science. And even though these are meant to be YOUR beliefs, developed through YOUR perceptions, when i finally get you to try and spell out YOUR argument in Logical terms, you point me to someone elses book. Why? Because your videos own argument suggests that subjective reality IS objective reality. And without the former we would lack the later. Philosophy, and bad philosophy at that.
adshenshall 1 year ago
As for the anthropic principle. I was going to string this out over a number of posts and really go into depth. Now i cba. The anthropic principle is yet again, a philosophy based upon personal interpretation of science. The initial advocators of the anthropic principle agreed that the big bang created the universe, or at least, that it had a physical existence prior to the existence of humans. They agree that planets were formed, then life arose, then life evolved. Then the philosophy kicks in.
adshenshall 1 year ago
Then they suggest that its not a coincidence that the universe is perfectly geared for our life. Therefore the universe mustve been designed that way. however, sensible people will look chronologically at cause and effect within the universe and also say: its not a coincidence. We are a product of our universe, therefore we will always appear to be perfectly suited to it. If we werent we would never have existed.
adshenshall 1 year ago
The universe came first. Us second. Therefore it is not suited to us. We are suited to it. water is perfect for fish; yet we do not suggest that water was designed for fish. Fish evolved for water. Fish that cant survive in water will not live. Genes that couldnt survive in our universe wouldnt exist.
adshenshall 1 year ago
DNA comes from RNA, which comes from Amino Acids, which comes from the formation of complex compounds, which come from basic molecules found in the universe, which come from the universe. We are a product of the universe so of course we are perfectly suited to it. the anthropic principle is backwards reasoning.
adshenshall 1 year ago
But of course you disagree with evolution and suggest no-one has ever published any proof or anything of merit. Judging from your videos you clearly have a basic understanding of biology, yet you lack an understanding of the principles of evolution. Two very different things. I have already cited books earlier in this thread. I suggest you read them. And read the paper on quantum mechanics to demonstrate rational interpretation of quantum superpositions.
adshenshall 1 year ago
Your ideas presented in this video are based not on fact, but on personal philosophies. I showed how various scientific theories do not support your conclusions, and showed how your argument structure means that your premises do not follow on to your conclusions. I hate to piss on your idea. But i do it only because of the degree to which you present this as fact, and anyone who disagrees is wrong or too dumb to understand. COs being necessary for existence is philosophy.
adshenshall 1 year ago
i wont reply again. i'm leaving the thread, hopefully never to return. but i cant guarantee it. thanks for the debate. i dont care enough any more to devote time to it. you are stuck in your views and you seemingly want to block out reason and objectivity in favour of subjectivity. although, this was fun while it lasted. many thanks, adam x
adshenshall 1 year ago
@adshenshall
Sorry, this vid is based on physiology and logic. With a hint of quantum mechanics. So you don't understand or accept the concept. Fine. Matters no to me.
Re: piss on my idea. This is obviously not my idea. But certainly thinking it out it makes tons of sense. Your problem is you think you are smarter than you are. You are so enamored with your own intelligence you go right past a very easy and fun concept.
You didn't "show" squat.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
I think I see your point, and I do see a difference between reception and perception. We receive EMR with a certain wavelength which our brain turns into "colors" by the combinations of signals which travel through the optic nerve.
But you change this line of thought midway and use it to exclude ALL life - which cannot not "perceive light". But the perception is not needed for the existence, only the interaction or response which does not require a conscious observer.
snakeguy76 2 years ago
@snakeguy76
Imagine if you will an organism that cannot hear, see, smell, touch or sense texture, sense warm hot cold, has no taste sense, is incapable of thought or recording. What exists in this organism's perception? What "interaction" would this organism have?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
I am with you 100% on perception (as opposed to bird evolution where we might be <1%) But I'm saying living creature do interact with their invironment. Chlorophyll is a molecule that changes in the presence of certain wavelengths of EMR. the plant does not think about it or "perceive it" Different pigments respond to certain "colors" of the light. Without it the plant would not be able to survive.
snakeguy76 2 years ago
The plant is not a CO. So, not a good choice of comparison. The only CO's are humans, and everything that exists exists in our perception.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
Thank you, but the point is you're saying if all humans ceased to be matter itself would not exist? You said "no life" at 4:05. i was making that distinction that life could exist without our perceiving it. You're posing the great philosophical question of existence. This is why you did all those drugs in the 60's.
Did your parents exist before you were born? Does novacaine really make the "pain" go away?
snakeguy76 2 years ago
You are not asking good questions. Everything you experience is an illusion that you have had since birth. You are constantly being fooled. Everything is in your perception and consciousness. Not "out there". No consciousness, no existence. And if you don't get it, that's OK. Doesn't matter. To tiring to keep arguing. Google Schrodinger's cat.
Parents of course were here. They are CO's themselves, and they have been recorded by other CO's. Novacain? Not pertinent. You are not close.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
I'm sorry, you're statements don't meet your own argument. I know schrodinger's cat. Look at your own statements:
"Everything you experience is an illusion that you have had since birth." - you're parents are an illusion. Watch "Total Recall" again.
Novacain is the perfect example because pain is soley in the individual. It cannot be "perceived" by anyone else.
snakeguy76 2 years ago
The illusion is that everything looks like it is "out there", outside of you brain. In reality, everything you experience is made up of perception of biological codes that run up a particular sensory nerve (optic for visual images, auditory for sound, eg). Sound seems like it comes from whatever made the sound. In reality, the world outside of a conscious sound equipped observer is dead silent. The sound is perception in the auditory cortex. THAT is the illusion. Sound is manufactured by a CO.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
@stevebee92653
I said I agree with what you said here. I'm not trying to "win" anything.
snakeguy76 2 years ago
#2
You are trying too hard to "win" for some reason. This is simple physiology and not some complex mystical mumbo jumbo. Ten years before you were born, did your parents exist FOR YOU? What color was the sun FOR YOU? What was the sound of a drum? Of course they didn't exist until you were born & gained consciousness.
You know the cat? Do you disagree with Schrodinger?
The illusion is that your parents exist "out there" when they really exist as perception "inside U".
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I've read your website, and I still say.
As any reliable textbook will tell you, light IS EMR.
Sound IS compressed air.
Before I was born, light existed.
And gamma rays exist, even though we can't see them.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
This objection is not addressing the real claim made but I disagree on point 6a and 7b.
The claim there is no images in the brain is not entirely true. It can be shown that neural activity can be mapped to images. I am not claiming this happens in the brain, but it is likely. Vision is a well understood engineering problem and this is what happens in such systems. As I cant paint pictures of sound, smell, etc I can only say that a similar mapping is going on with those perceptions as well.
jomen112 2 years ago
So you could take a brain that is viewing an image and recreate that image only searching and scanning the visual cortex?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
According to the argument I just made, in principle, yes.
jomen112 2 years ago
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Not a great idea to pose arguments when that is the case.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Interesting reply. What makes you conclude that?
jomen112 2 years ago
Can't discuss with you when your information is so incorrect. So I don't quite know what your point is. Or if you are arguing the vid. Try Googling Schrodinger's cat.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
Since you did not answer my question it is hard to know what you did not understand. I do not claim there is any images "out there", because there is no such stuff "out there".
If we call what happens on the retina an image then it follows there must be a map of this image in the visual part of the brain.
What is it you think is incorrect in this?
jomen112 2 years ago
Sorry, no "map" in the cortex. Code moves up the optic nerve to the visual cortex. 130 M retinal cells transfer the code to 12 M optic neurons. The visual cortex reads code. And we perceive images from that code. But we sure don't have access to them. And we never will.
I have no idea what your point is. What does that have to do with the vid? I am trying to be patient.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
The video claims at point 6a there is no images in the brain, I claim this is not entirely true. It is known that images representation occurs in the primary and secondary visual cortical areas .
My claim do not involve any form of consciousness experience here, only that a mapping to an image exists in the brain and that we can decode this mapping as images.
This image decoding has been performed by Yoichi Miyawak in a research lab and the result has been published in the journal Neuron.
jomen112 2 years ago
Ref:
Y. Miyawaki, et al. Visual Image Reconstruction from Human Brain Activity using a Combination of Multiscale Local Image Decoders, Neuron, Volume 60, Issue 5, Pages 915-929
jomen112 2 years ago
Good. Thanks for the reference. Interesting. I have no idea what you think that has to do with this vid or what your question is.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
In your video you ask any commenter to state what claim they my like to dispute and why. I am disputing a claim in the video, claim 6a (and 7b). I have stated what claim I dispute two times earlier and I have explained why I do not agree. If you still do not understand what my claim is, then I need some input her from you what you find unclear as I can not guess your thoughts.
jomen112 2 years ago
@jomen112
You disagree that the auditory nerve transmits a coded signal to the auditory cortex where it is perceived as sound? You think that is not true?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
I clearly receives something from my sensor input that I do experience as sound. Claiming something else would be to claim I am death, which I am not.
What is the point with this question?
jomen112 2 years ago
@jomen112
You think there ARE images in the visual cortex like a screen? Do these images have color? Light? If you could dissect a brain that was viewing images, would you see light , color, and the visual image the person is seeing?
stevebee92653 2 years ago
No I did not say there is a "screen" in the visual cortex, I defined an images as whatever is decoded on the retina - per definition this "images" is the in brain then.
This "images" is then coded in V1 and V2, this
information can decoded and sent back to the retina, and then the very same encoding in V1 and V2 occurs, and not surprisingly the brain/mind see the very same image again.
I know this is true because I can see things (in my mind) or do you want to claim I am blind as well. ;)
jomen112 2 years ago
@jomen112
Again I have absolutely no idea what your point is.
stevebee92653 2 years ago
The point is, in order to see an image there must be an image to see. The next point is, this image does ONLY exists in the consciousness mind. The third point, is this state of mind is the state of the brain, therefore it is concluded there is an images in the brain.
You ask if the image has color, well take a good look at the image. Does it appear to have color? If it does, then yes it has color. Does the image has a bird? Well take a look again. Do you see a bird? Well then it has a bird.
jomen112 2 years ago
You are so far from understanding this vid. You need to do something else. I want to save you some time, and me some space. So Bye
stevebee92653 2 years ago
How do we know that things remains unchanged when we do not look at it?
The answer is we assume it to be so because we can not say that we have observed an unobserved thing to be unchanged. There is more than one true description of unobserved things, and there is also a class of equivalent description of unobserved things and they all can be used equally well.
This concept can not prove qualia as it is just another equivalent description no more true or false than any other description.
jomen112 2 years ago
*chuckle*
Ok, Stevebee. *patting him on the head* :)
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Thanks. That feels nice. =D
I am disappointed in you. But maybe sometime when you are walking along thinking about something else, you will get a brain flash, and get it. I don't have high hopes though.
And "chuckle" is much better than LOL.
stevebee92653 2 years ago