8
   

Perception and physical reality

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 09:26 am
In philosophy it has always been a goal to start from the most basic assumption that can be found. This can be a statement that is understood to be self evident. Cogitas ergo sum is an attempt at such a statement. But a fact is that we can never circumvent our sensory perception using tools attained by means of it, to govern it's internal states. Every scientific measurement is merely an extension of our senses.

But modern physics may have changed that with the introduction of quantum physics. It describes the world differently, and this world is something that does not correspond to our classical idea of physical reality on which our theories of perception are based.

This offers interesting oportunities. We have a concept of the world unpercieved by us. A reality consisting of quantum information which the human brain is capable of observing. Every physical sense is a continuous stream of quantum measurements that converge into what is percieved as reality.
But there is more. The process is recorded in memory, and then this pool of memory also becomes an individual stream of information which the individual relies heavily on.

So reality is a mix of external and internal input that forms a continuous event of consciousness. There is only quantum information surrounding us, and it is copied into our memory where it is processed and conceptualized as physical reality.
But physical reality itself, the waves and particles that are observed, is not material in nature. They can perhaps be described as our most basic assumptions. Measurements that are so fundamental that they appear solid in our perception.

This would mean that physical reality is a result of perception. It is created in the act of observation, in which quantum superposition will collapse into one of the possible outcomes. The fact that a specific object will always look the same every time I examine it is a result of the act of observation being a mix of observing the external input of the object, but also simultaneously observing the internal information of previous encounters with the object. All sources of input are active in perception, and often we even rely more on our internal source than external sources.

So... According to this idea conscious reality is what makes physical reality. Physical reality cannot be the fundamental state of existence of the universe if that is true. Physical reality and consciousness cannot exist in any other way than as a simultaneous occurence. A manifestation of inherent meaning that becomes apparent by the internal interaction of the two as percieved by the individual.
And things are a bit up side down, because now fundamental reality isn't physical, but something else. It is information, which is pointless without observers.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 14,599 • Replies: 239
No top replies

 
mickalos
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 10:05 am
What is "fundamental reality" supposed to mean? I can't make much sense of your post, to be honest, but you seem to think that there is a mind independent world causally impinging upon our senses. Sounds like physical reality to me.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 10:35 am
@Cyracuz,
Consciousness is what gives physical reality its meaning... Perception is only the recognition of reality, but perception alone also gives much false information, so we seek tools, instraments to magnify and measure perception to make objects seem to have a more objective existence, but of physical reality we must believe, and accept in my opinion, that it exists apart from our being, though the same cannot be said of moral reality which exist because we exist, by our existence, which provides them with meaning... Of course, if humanity did not live, and after we die, physical reality, though having being would have no meaning... Meaning comes from life, and as meaning is value it us who determine meaning in relation to our lives so that which support life is good, and what endangers life is bad...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 04:43 pm
@mickalos,
mickalos wrote:

What is "fundamental reality" supposed to mean? I can't make much sense of your post, to be honest, but you seem to think that there is a mind independent world causally impinging upon our senses. Sounds like physical reality to me.


I can't make much sense of your post


I don't think you are meant to do so. If you had been, he would have written something different.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 05:23 pm
The OP made perfect sense to me.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 05:35 pm
@mickalos,
Usually we tend to think that consciousness has evolved from an unconscious world of matter. Here I wanted to explore the possibility that the exact oposite may actually be a more acurate description.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 06:42 pm
@Fido,
If quantum physics is indeed the most acurate description of the universe that we know of, it seems to me that a theory of perception according to the conceptual framework that arises from our interaction with quantum physics could potentially become a more acurate description of consciousness and reality.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 08:19 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

In philosophy it has always been a goal to start from the most basic assumption that can be found. This can be a statement that is understood to be self evident. Cogitas ergo sum is an attempt at such a statement. But a fact is that we can never circumvent our sensory perception using tools attained by means of it, to govern it's internal states. Every scientific measurement is merely an extension of our senses.

But modern physics may have changed that with the introduction of quantum physics. It describes the world differently, and this world is something that does not correspond to our classical idea of physical reality on which our theories of perception are based.

This offers interesting oportunities. We have a concept of the world unpercieved by us. A reality consisting of quantum information which the human brain is capable of observing. Every physical sense is a continuous stream of quantum measurements that converge into what is percieved as reality.
But there is more. The process is recorded in memory, and then this pool of memory also becomes an individual stream of information which the individual relies heavily on.

So reality is a mix of external and internal input that forms a continuous event of consciousness. There is only quantum information surrounding us, and it is copied into our memory where it is processed and conceptualized as physical reality.
But physical reality itself, the waves and particles that are observed, is not material in nature. They can perhaps be described as our most basic assumptions. Measurements that are so fundamental that they appear solid in our perception.

This would mean that physical reality is a result of perception. It is created in the act of observation, in which quantum superposition will collapse into one of the possible outcomes. The fact that a specific object will always look the same every time I examine it is a result of the act of observation being a mix of observing the external input of the object, but also simultaneously observing the internal information of previous encounters with the object. All sources of input are active in perception, and often we even rely more on our internal source than external sources.

So... According to this idea conscious reality is what makes physical reality. Physical reality cannot be the fundamental state of existence of the universe if that is true. Physical reality and consciousness cannot exist in any other way than as a simultaneous occurence. A manifestation of inherent meaning that becomes apparent by the internal interaction of the two as percieved by the individual.
And things are a bit up side down, because now fundamental reality isn't physical, but something else. It is information, which is pointless without observers.



you misunderstand the Universe

the Universe is both of the micro and macro

whithout the macro, planets for instance , life has no place inwhich to take hold , grow and evolve

therefore your reasoning is un-sound
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 11:45 pm
@Cyracuz,
Good synopsis! It may be the case that that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in my Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 12:09 am
@fresco,
TYPOS CORRECTED

Re: Cyracuz (Post 4363959)
Good synopsis! It may be the case that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in mind Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 04:42 am
@north,
Quote:
you misunderstand the Universe


Haha! Show me one human being who doesn't. Smile

Quote:
the Universe is both of the micro and macro

whithout the macro, planets for instance , life has no place inwhich to take hold , grow and evolve

therefore your reasoning is un-sound


That is if we don't consider the possibility that you may have failed to grasp the essence of what I am trying to communicate, in which case it would be your reasoning that was unsound. I'm not saying it's the case, though your objections do suggest it.

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 04:50 am
@fresco,
Thanks fresco.
It may indeed be as you say concerning reality.
And yet there is a fundamental underlying assumption that affects how we relate to everything. The clearest example is perhaps the behaviour of a materialist in the world compared to the behaviour of a person whose values are more spiritually oriented. One believes the world is inherently physical and that value is primarily materialistic, while the other believes that the conscious aspects of reality constitute it's foundation. They live in different worlds.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:26 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

TYPOS CORRECTED

Re: Cyracuz (Post 4363959)
Good synopsis! It may be the case that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in mind Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".


Reality is a moral form, and it has meaning without a specific being... It is true of all words as concepts pointing to physical reality and moral reality that all are meanings, specific meanings, that are perceived subjectively... What ever is the case, or the facts in the matter at hand; when we communicate we communicate meaning, and not the object or infinite we are talking about... It is true of all human experience that what we learn, and when we learn, what we learn is meaning, some times whole collections of meanings... We are unconscious of it, because of focus... We know the meaning of a flat tire, and not all flat tires, but our own; and to change that flat we must follow detailed instructions for our vehicle, all of which are specific meanings communicated with pictures and words... So, language is always relatively on a holiday, communicating generally what is conveyed specifically by numbers, and we can see that all, even the most general of meanings if they can be expressed into words can be digitized as this message to this forum is...
0 Replies
 
ABYA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:43 am
@Cyracuz,
Well put my friend.
I wish you well in your investigations.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:46 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
you misunderstand the Universe


Haha! Show me one human being who doesn't. Smile

Quote:

Our misunderstanding is as close as we can get to understanding, and I do not want to take ignorance or misunderstanding for granted, but assail them with will; and yet before the fact, admit the futility of ones ability, and all in making actual sense of life... We are finite in an infinite reality... People following their desires and abilities destroy much to know little, and to do little good to do much harm... If we can say we understand at all it must be unconsciously, where thought and emotion is reconciled.. First we must find the whole person in ourselves, and then construct an analogy of reality from the bits and pieces of knowledge and perception...

We cannot begin to understand reality without understanding our place in it, so without admitting a faith in God, we must see all with God's eyes, in infinite time and in infinite space which to some may make us seem insignificant, but as the only being with an independent will -having all the significance there is to have....
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:56 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Good synopsis! It may be the case that that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in my Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".


On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

fresco wrote:

Good synopsis! It may be the case that that "reality"is only meaningful in limited areas of social discourse (see my similar argument for "free will"). We need to bear in my Wittgenstein's warning about "language on holiday".


On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.

I am in retirement, but that does not mean my brain is set in neutral or that the rest of me has gone flabby... Few understand the language by which we communicate, and those who act as though they do, and who really study the subject communicate so poorly themselves and make the subject so opaque that only one so inclined as themselves can grasp their points... And yet all people communicate, and where language fails, touch or violence can often succeed... So we must all understand enough of the subject even without an expert such as yourself on hand,, though everyone can benefit by giving the subject some thought... Consider just how little of any experience or perception is communicable...

It brings to mind Anni Defranco's line that we barely have time to react in this life, let alone rehearse... If you live your life as it should be lived, giving to all your experience and relationships due attention you do not have time to translate them for the benefit and understanding of others... I have lived a life full tilt in the quest for knowledge and experience, sometimes, often in fact, beyond what I could safely perceive because the pain was too much to bear, but I think at such times humanity can go numb... It is only now that I have slowed my experience of life and my education that I can reflect on the meaning of it, and try to communicate that meaning which unfortunately, was in large part, unique to me, having no lesson for others...

I will not say that youth is wasted on the young... As I was told once by an old man: If you knew what I know at your age, you could be a millionaire at my age... Too bad that even then money held little meaning for me... But I would tell any young person something similar: If you knew what I know, you could live a moral life even without knowing rationally why you do so, and you would understand forms which are all forms of relationship, and so master relationships which are the most essential element of life, the source of all our pain and pleasure, and so be happy in the end... And youth, entitled to make its own mistakes and to draw its own lessons will not hear, and so suffers...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 07:02 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy

Do you not realize that such a statement as that reveals more about your capacity than the language you think you are commenting on?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 07:21 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

kennethamy

Do you not realize that such a statement as that reveals more about your capacity than the language you think you are commenting on?


That would be nice, but I could hardly hope for that.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 08:26 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.


This was the statement I was referring to, in case it wasn't clear. But of course, there could be intent of meaning in it on your part that I fail to grasp, in which case I would appreciate a clarification.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Perception and physical reality
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/25/2024 at 11:58:45