Quote:

. . . the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge.

No one would argue [at least, not yet] that since man's body has to process the food he eats, no objective rules of proper nutrition can ever be discovered - that "true nutrition" has to consist of absorbing some ineffable substance without the participation of a digestive system, but since man is incapable of "true feeding," nutrition is a subjective matter open to his whim, and it is merely a social convention that forbids him to eat poisonous mushrooms.

No one would argue that since nature does not tell man automatically what to eat - as it does not tell him automatically how to form concepts - he should abandon the illusion that there is a right or wrong way of eating [or he should revert to the safety of the time when he did not have to "trust" objective evidence, but could rely on dietary laws prescribed by a supernatural power]. . . .

No one would argue that man eats bread rather than stones purely as a matter of "convenience."

It is time to grant to man's consciousness the same cognitive respect one grants to his body - i.e., the same objectivity.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Reality can exist without consciousness.

---

No, it can't.  Wipe out all consciousness... and the universe cannot be shown to exist.

Quote:

The party of existence, however, is independent of any faculty of perception. To say that the existence of Earth was nullified prior to any conscious life, or after any conscious life becomes extinct, is to deny the Primacy of Existence, the absoluteness of reality.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Reality can exist without consciousness.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

To claim that because one is not present to recieve those sounds, that the sound is therefore non-existent, is a denial of cause and effect - another law of Nature.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.

---

itstarssaddam said:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.

---

Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?

---

Sclorch said:

itstarssaddam said:

SkorpivoMusterion said:

Because to claim that an action wouldn't create any reactions, is to deny the fact that every cause must have an effect - which, is an objective fact.

---

Without any kind of conscious observer, how is there any way to verify that the action ever took place?

---

Faith in formulaic constants?

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

By looking at the crime scene, so to speak.

If I walk in a forest, and see a fallen tree, then obviously the tree once stood - for a tree cannot fall if it never stood. Hence, it fell, and all natural effects followed from such a cause.

---

SkorpivoMusterion said:

In my opinion, there would be no way to confirm that the tree existed in that state prior to it's entrance into your perception, and your role as the observer.

In that state, as in "stood"? Certainly, we can confirm that it once stood - it has fallen. What more confirmation do you need? Something does not fall without having stood. Furthermore, an expert can check the remains of the tree stump, observe levels of decay and even determine the general time frame that the incident occured. One can even determine how many years the tree has stood by looking on the inside of the tree stump.

---