Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902558 - 07/05/15 07:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

There is no evidence without an observer. It can be assumed that the material world exists without it, it can't be shown. It moves understanding out of the empirical into imagination if there is no observer.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: Q [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902562 - 07/05/15 07:59 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

"Nature doesn't care about any of this."
:thumbup:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Q [Re: Kurt]
    #21902579 - 07/05/15 08:01 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Last I checked there wasn't really anything about Descartes' philosophy that I sympathize with, and the majority of his impact on our species, as far as I can deduce what it was, has been quite loathsome.  Not sure about the "love" in the love-hate.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902584 - 07/05/15 08:02 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

It means the observer has not yet observed the evidence.
Just because it hasn't yet been observed does not mean the evidence does not exist, things don't pop into existence only once you've observed them.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902590 - 07/05/15 08:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

falcon said:
There is no evidence without an observer. It can be assumed that the material world exists without it, it can't be shown. It moves understanding out of the empirical into imagination if there is no observer.




Your comments make no sense to me.  Are you assuming that things happen outside of consciousness?  Or are you saying it is impossible?  Forget about the observer.  What do you think is the basis of this reality?  Nothingness, or consciousness?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902628 - 07/05/15 08:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Are you assuming that things happen outside of consciousness?

I don't know.

What do you think is the basis of this reality?  Nothingness, or consciousness?

I don't know.

but you can't forget the observer, there is no way to.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902637 - 07/05/15 08:13 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well I guess the point I am trying to make is that if you didn't exist, everyone and everything else still would.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902655 - 07/05/15 08:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What does an observer have to do with reality?

Things exist whether observed or not.
New species of deep sea fish do not pop into existence only once we've observed them.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21902677 - 07/05/15 08:24 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

hmmm


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902694 - 07/05/15 08:27 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
It means the observer has not yet observed the evidence.
Just because it hasn't yet been observed does not mean the evidence does not exist, things don't pop into existence only once you've observed them.




Can I use this as my argument for gods existence?


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21902710 - 07/05/15 08:31 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
What does an observer have to do with reality?

Things exist whether observed or not.
New species of deep sea fish do not pop into existence only once we've observed them.




I don't know that things exist without an observer. It's a possibility and an assumption. And we are not necessarily the only observer.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
    #21902795 - 07/05/15 08:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

What a predictable response..

There either is or isn't evidence for claims in the universe.
If you can find the evidence for god, you can use that in your argument, so far the only physical, observable, testable evidence of a claim for god is the bible which is outdated and disproven beyond a doubt.

If there is evidence for god, we are yet to observe it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902804 - 07/05/15 08:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Correct, YOU do not know that something exists until you have observed the evidence for it. That doesn't mean it only exists once you have observed it.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21902870 - 07/05/15 09:09 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Correct, YOU do not know that something exists until you have observed the evidence for it. That doesn't mean it only exists once you have observed it.




I am an observer, there are others, if there are none what then.


Edited by falcon (07/05/15 09:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
    #21902932 - 07/05/15 09:24 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If none then there are simply no observers. That doesn't change what exists.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleballsalsaMDiscord
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,855
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902975 - 07/05/15 09:37 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
That which is rationally impossible can be rationally denied as it is not rationally possible.





you didn't want to listen to my arguments, so maybe you will listen to one of your own

Quote:

sudly said:
It means the observer has not yet observed the evidence.
Just because it hasn't yet been observed does not mean the evidence does not exist, things don't pop into existence only once you've observed them.





:mindblown:


--------------------


Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
    #21902981 - 07/05/15 09:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

There is aveil that can not be lifted.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
    #21903033 - 07/05/15 09:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The rationally impossible remains rationally impossible until there is evidence produced to suggest otherwise.

Evidence exists whether we believe it or not, the challenge is finding it.
If we cannot find the evidence, we have no basis to claim.

I'm amazed this is mind blowing to you.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefalcon
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 20 minutes
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21903073 - 07/05/15 09:59 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

The absence of any observers is a change that can not be tested. Your assuptions are built on observation of a world with observation, a world without can not be known.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21903092 - 07/05/15 10:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Respectively, I would say I know practically nothing about the delicate issues of Quantum mechanics, so suffice to say I'll take your word that this idea that we create our reality which you are speaking of is probably found in the provisions of that subject. But does clearing away an assumption that we create reality, lead to any general certainty about whatever is in front of you? If I am generally following you, I would then be able to ask; on what basis do you positively claim meaning from the provisions which you are speaking?

Or are you speaking of "existence" somewhat less meaningfully, like the rest of us, as what we ritually bang our heads against each morning?

I know that sometimes people base their philosophical positions on QM, and I can guess they do so more or less idealistically, from what I have heard. You seem to be expressing some skepticism. I know they make certain connections with points of expression which philosophers have perennially made in any case. Descartes, as you surely know was the one who said "I think therefore I am", and thus ascribed essential point of context dependency for any "objective" knowledge, which we refer to as "subjectivity", and pretty much consolidated most superficial claims of existence of any kinds of entities since.

I'll attest that if you have any regard for the Greeks or pre-modern knowledge, Descartes is a pain in the ass. Actually, in my opinion, you really can't recognize how much of a pain in the ass Descartes was, and is, until you recognize how partial you have to be to his thinking, how enforced it is, whether you want to or not, or whether you or anyone are conscious of it or not, because his presence is so embedded, it is practically a cultural fact. It's in the way people think and speak, and it is his mechanical understanding of the world that is institutionalized, and what we all do kind of project onto reality. I have often laughed at your pathos for this also, although I can see you come from it from a much different perspective than my own.

I'd say maybe by relation it's pretty confusing understanding and relating to certain parameters of any "subject" of knowledge, such as QM thanks to Descartes' comments on subjects. I mean, as you know, in a sense QM is a subject, a book you might open, or the subject of predication in a sentence about something in its terms. By certain naturalistic assumptions and basic conceptions we assume, every subject is in some sense a "subject matter". That is partly because before Descartes' time, a subject was considered to be categorically substantial by Aristotle, and everything was dependent on it as point of reference, in a certain way. That tradition continues, as we still seem to have genuine subjects of knowledge. But in any case, clearly it is an entirely different provision we don't think much about so much (why are there seemingly two kinds of subjects?) but the greek conception remains equivocal in the same concept of subjectivity which Descartes "revolutionized" through doubt.

This is an interesting short bit article on that concept of knowledge and how in short Descartes fundamentally turned it into something basically ambiguious, thanks to his notion of general puzzlement about what we perceive.

Descartes suggested methodological doubt as essential, and laying to bare all modern sciences. The first thing he doubted were given provisions of knowledge. Then he doubted his senses, and anything else, until long story short there was one thing he couldn't doubt, and that was the "thinking thing" the "substance" of the mind. Based on that he "worked back" in rationally conceiving the extended (res extensa) formal world of the senses, which implied its material substance, and so on.

This in some convoluted manner, is how the domains of epistemological provisions are usually given as "subjects of knowledge". The best I can understand this, is that to us moderners, at the same time that a "subject" remains substantive and point of reference, this is now covertly switched to the locus of the subject we "are". As any idealist will freely and correctly figure, everything is contextually dependent upon this subject, albeit clearly in a different way.

But of course, according to Descartes, the subject, equivocally, becomes a point of non reference. For instance "subjectivity" is what things that were referred to as subjects now "aren't", (when people say something is subjective, they mean it is not a subject of knowledge) and so the object becomes referent instead at the same time as the subject. People have different preferences on how this works out apparently. But this object, I think, is what people are talking about as provision of "reality" due to its easy binary reference in respect to a cartesian subject. I don't think of this point of reference switch point of cartesianism as naturalistic at all.

Hypokeimenon or the subject of knowledge was substantive in a different sense, as a subject of knowledge and yet it is mainly being referred to within the certainty of objectivity as point of reference in many cases today. I think the problem with this is that there is nothing fundamentally certain about a subject of knowledge in point of reference, either as Aristotle told it or indeed as any subject of knowledge stands today, realistically considered. What certainties do we have of nature? We have our assumptions and concepts. Hypokeimenon, or the subject of knowledge meant in its own way, "underlying thing", or kernal of meaning.


In any case I'd say that the solid point of reference that is appealed to in Cartesian provisions is pretty different from Aristotle's. In Cartesianism as provision of the world, or "reality" people have all sorts of positions on it as if they figured the right way to spin it and solved Cartesian problems. Usually, just like with Descartes there is some rationalized conception of "existence", either of something subjective or objective, excluding the "problem" of the other, like this was some big aha! But I think you just end up in different provisions of consideration.

What is behind or "underlying" cartesianism's dualism rather than flipping its position in ontology seems to be Aristotle's hypokeimenon. As an underlying thing referred to it is significantly  dualistic, but nothing like Descartes.

Aristotle was responding in his time to the presocratic naturalist philosophers, the ones who conceived nature as elements of fire wind, water, and air. I think these other provisions of thinking about the world can be interesting, at the least, aside from self evidence. What is Hypokeimenon? And more, what is it to think like Thales of Miletus who thought that being was water, or Heraclitus of Ephesus, who thought the world was fire?

I think the only way to understand Descartes "beyond" his conceptions is to either find what provisions were thought before, or perhaps what I less know of, after. They seem to be giant steps.

I am not sure what help it is to the discussion but what I would note is that when people talk about "observers", it seems like sometimes they are generally talking about certain epistemelogical provisions of what can and can't be known, which is inherently dualistic, and at the same time they are talking about apertures of sensory experience, which although they can carry these notions of dualism, they may not necessarily.

It is not necessary for instance, in talking about visual perception, that we should be reduced to talking about some place slightly behind the eye, and how that is an internal or subjective in respect to an external world. If you think you can step out of Cartesianism, or other philosophers concepts just try to lose that "inner" eye...
 
Anyway, I can't find any sense of closure to this post I've started, and I am not too pleased with it. The question is basically just at the top on the first paragraph, and the rest is nonsense. Here's Martin Heidegger, from a book that is sitting in front of me. This is on what he calls the question of being:

Quote:


This question has today been forgotten - although our time considers itself progressive in again affirming "metaphysics". All the same we believe we are spared the exertion of rekindling a gigantomachia peri res ousias. But the question touched upon here is hardly an arbitrary one. It sustained the avid research of Plato and Aristotle but from then on ceased to be heard as a thematic question of actual investigation. What these two thinkers achieved has been preserved in various distorted and camoflauged forms down to Hegel's logic. And what then was wrested from phenomena by the highest exertion of thought, albeit in fragments and first beginnings, has long since been trivialized.

Not only that. On the foundation of the Greek point of departure for the interpretation of being a dogma has taken shape which not only declares that the question of the meaning of being is superfluous but sanctions its neglect. It is said that "being" is the most universal and emptiest concept. As such it resists every attempt at definition. Nor does this most universal and thus indefinable concept need any definition. Everybody uses it constantly and also already understands what is meant by it. Thus what troubled ancient philosophizing and kept is so by virtue of its obscurity has become obvious, clear as day, such that whoever persists in asking about it is accused of an error of method.




Edited by Kurt (07/06/15 04:19 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next >  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* LSD, Sex, Cosmic Consciousness and Evolution
( 1 2 all )
Swami 3,958 39 11/26/07 05:47 PM
by redgreenvines
* The phenomenology of death.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
deCypher 4,043 63 11/25/08 03:30 PM
by deranger
* Why is Phenomenology so esoteric and difficult? spud 1,342 5 04/28/07 11:52 PM
by spud
* Maurice Merleau-Ponty, phenomenology Malachi 847 4 12/17/03 10:24 AM
by fireworks_god
* discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs
( 1 2 all )
akira_akuma 1,212 22 08/11/15 03:13 PM
by akira_akuma
* Nietzscheian Propositions on "Reality"
( 1 2 all )
psycroptic 2,101 23 09/03/08 11:30 AM
by Lakefingers
* The Hard Problem of Consciousness
( 1 2 all )
deCypher 2,303 34 05/26/10 12:36 PM
by deCypher
* Review of the last century's phenomenology
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 4,723 68 11/21/02 11:42 PM
by Jellric

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,878 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.