Flora in the world of the blind.

Well, Fresco. You failed to mention naive romantics. I agree with what you said, it's much easier than understanding it.

The existence of flora, as it exists here, would imply the existence of light, as it is defined here, yes. If you are trying to postulate that if everyone in the world were blind, our type of flora or our type of light would not exist, I think that requires a significantly more in-depth explanation that you provided.

On top of that. aren't the flor themselves observers? Not all the world would be "blind" to the existence of light.

rufio

It is "we" who separate "flora" from "light". Our world views (designer spectacles) separate "them" but without us where is the boundary between these two "things"? To anthopomorphically evoke "a plant" as "an observer" is to conveniently forget that "we" are holding this charming scenario in "our minds eye" !
(It's back to the tree in the forest folks..it falls only because we are "seeing it" in our heads !....no "we" =no "tree")

BTW

Letty - Romantics are far from naive !

...and Rufio - no "in depth" analysis is required...its either obvious or it's not...but if the light (ho ho) resists dawning try the celebrated Nagel-Searle discussion on "What It's Like to Be a Bat".

What I mean, fresco, is you'd have to explain scientifically why plant life would not survive if it couldn't be seen.

....and why romantics are not naive; however, Fresco, you did awaken a need to write. I just explored your thought in a poem.

Rufio

Sorry - I don't enjoy roundabout rides anymore.

I'm talking about "the nature of existence", you are talking about "survival" with "existence" assumed, and practically every word you have used like "explain" "scientific" "life" etc is similarly loaded with with the baggage of naive realism.

Here's a suggestion. try starting with "life" (which is usually a thread of many pages !) and take an accepted aspect of it like "the maintenance of coherent structure against the "normal tendency towards disorder" (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Then ask "who judges the disorder" ? What is important here is not the question but the questionING...and also the answers that others might have already given that have gone into this deeply.

You are saying that plants are not necessarily alive, fresco?

I find it amusing. Biology moves us closer to knowledge, and physics brings us back. Very apt. Perhaps this new trend is an example of the 2nd law at work? What we once knew to be true is now dissolving into confusion and chaos.

Defining life in terms of physics and chemistry is pointless. Physics does not study life, and chemistry only does when combined with biology.

So let me ask again - why are human beings "observers" but not plants, or dogs or cats? They are all living beings that are biologically affected by the environment the same way we are. Stop avoiding the question by trying to define life in terms of thermodynamics.

Okay - you stick to the roundabout and I'll keep trying the helicopter!

(EDIT. You do seem to have specific problems in understanding English and lack of flexibility in overcoming the arbitrary subject boundaries in what seems your recent educational experiences. This is NOT a personal attack but an explanation of why I, and others seem to be unable to get through to you.)

I'm understanding you fine. You're saying that if everyone were blind, the nature of the flora would be different. I'm asking you what gives you this idea.

(Letty - I'll look out for your poem shortly.)

Rufio,

If you say "what gives you this idea" then you do NOT understand....see the Nagel-Searle reference (or my lengthy thread on "Is Reality a Social Construction")

I haven't read your book, fresco. What do social contructions have to do with this?

So, twyvel, you agree that plants can "observe". Now, here's something more interesting. You claim that living things observe/"detect" nature in order to respond to it, which is necessary for life. I agree. Now, on some small scale, everything is effected by the processes of nature on some level. Dirt cracks under the sunlight, walls are bleached, objects fall under the force of gravity, dry leaves pinpointed by a magnifying glass combust. So, wouldn't all of these things also reasonably be "observers" or "detectors"? They too are effected by these things in an unmistakable way.

Sure. Anything can be an entity. Or do you mean a sentient entity? If I throw something, and it falls and it breaks, but I am somehow not subject to the laws of gravity (and in that case, according to you, they don't exist), than is the object broken or not? Does it matter if the object is able to understand that it is broken or not?

Disregard my previous posts in this thread.

There are no observable observers.

Observer = consciousness = awareness

But since consciousness cannot observe itself or any other consciousness there is no observable observer/consciousness in the observable manifested universe.

And since consciousness cannot be observed a distinction cannot be made between the observer (consciousness) and the observed.

There cannot be an "observed" without an observer as such all there is is observing.

Twyvel

You are correct that we as "humans" tend to project the "observation mode" to other "life forms". However this process of projection tends to assign the role "actor" and "object" to the scene in accordance with our own "explanatory needs". We rarely consider the process of "observation" as "interaction" between two complementary "processes". To repeat an anology from earlier threads..."the existence" of a river is determined by the forces within the water and the structure of the terrain...but the concepts of "force" "water" and "terrain" are all determined by the communicative needs of humans...as a fish "riverness" would be something else....and "reality" is all of this !

Just to get back to the "gravity point" raised above. The nature of "gravity" depends on the nature of the observer. In the microcosm, gravity is viewed as a "force" like a human pull, but in the macrocosm as described by Einstein, gravity is an aspect of the curvature of space. ("Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve") This brings us nicely back to the river analogy.

Another useful Einsteinian model in discussing so called "observation" the view that "matter" and "energy" are essentially aspects of the same "stuff". What we might see as "energy impinging on matter" might also be viewed as the intermingling of different "states of stuff" like liquids at different temperatures. Does A "cool" B or does B "heat" A ? ...in the end both A and B have changed.....thats the key to undertanding interaction.

Yes fresco.

I cannot observe the reality of a fish or you for that matter, so the fishes reality is not mine, it's in a sense another universe, (or another mind). Although that other universe may be no more distinct from mine then two waves in an ocean are distinct from each other.

If it is true that all there is, is consciousness all distinctions are mirages, and there really is only one entity having billions of observation simultaneously.

"Is the universe nothing more then billions upon billions of observations"

(a quote from the QM link I posted in another thread.)