17
   

Time simply does not exist

 
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 12:29 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If its existence is entirely determined by its social significance, then given a irreconcilable dispute as to its purpose-- won't it just cease to exist?


I don't follow your logic. If there was dispute about it's purpose, it wouldn't be none of the proposed things, it would be all.
There was actually a similar problem every winter during my childhood. The best slope to ride down with our sleds was also the only road cars could drive to get to the area we lived in. Needless to say this caused problems, the least of which being that when we came down while cars drove up it could get dangerous.
Then they sanded the slope, so that cars could get up even on the snow, and that was it for the sleds. It happened the same every year.
(This was in the early eighties, before it was dangerous for a child to get out of bed without a helmet on.)


You previously asked, suggestively (on pg 14 of this thread),

Cyracuz wrote:

This implies that there is a difference between the illness and the perception of it. But is there a difference between an object and the perception of that object?


Does that mean that your own answer to your own question is in the affirmative, and if so i assure you that i concur? Your previous suggestion seemed to be that you didn't recognize a distinction between an object and its normative "human" perception, ie that the sensation and cognitive interpretation of a hypothetical "object" was reducible to "its" meaning (/existence) in social exchange..i'll give you an out -- perhaps i was wrong.

But i don't think so. i think you are in the quibbling stage of argumentation.

What if it were not a question of purpose? What if it were a question of purposeful communication v. purposeless growth, expansion, reproduction?

The difference between the good sledding slope you appreciated in your childhood and a decent, uphill climb for automobiles seems to have been ultimately adjudicated by a civil respect for the exponentially growing number of automobiles vs. the slowly growing neighborhood number/ vote count of the sledders. The number of autos eventually won, every year, you say.

Well. doesn't that imply that it would seem an "automobile road", and not a "juvenile sledder path", despite a general social disagreement? No? i agree -- it was a sledder vs. auto question every time.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 12:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Language used by humans interpret what we see in our environment. Without human interpretation, objective/subjective doesn't exist.

That's correct; it doesn't have any meaning without humans applying their interpretation to it. Humans create our own reality.


So, we humans create our own reality, but there is a human element in the language that designates objective and subjective properties to observed objects? And somehow, that distinction is really meaningful, but not true?
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 01:32 am
@Razzleg,
Put simply, would there be objective and subjective issues without humans?

I don't think so.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 02:29 am
@cicerone imposter,
answer the question...

cicerone imposter wrote:

Put simply, would there be objective and subjective issues without humans?

I don't think so.


That's not an answer, it's an evasion...

cicerone imposter wrote:

Everything is a "social agreement" based on language. There is a difference between objective and subjective identification of things which doesn't change with language. A ball in any language is still a ball.


So individual interpretation forms the basis of linguistic interpretation, upon which depends social agreement? You seem to imply here that subjective impressions precede "objective valuations. Which is it?

Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 05:38 am
@Razzleg,
I asked this question:
Quote:
But is there a difference between an object and the perception of that object?


Let me try to clarify. If you see a ball, and later you recall it in your memory, is it the same ball? Is the object you think about the same object you saw, or is it an unrelated mental representation?

We all know that there are many ways to spin this. But if we borrow some concepts from quantum physics, we might get another result. If we think of the ball as a quantum system existing in it's definite state, we can compare all perceptions of it to superpositions of that quantum system.
It reality, the ball can only occupy one point in space at any one time. But in our minds, the ball can do or be anything we can imagine.
In a way, we can say that conscious awareness is superpositioned reality, and it is on this background that we understand reality. We can perceive the transition from one state to another, and because we can remember the transition, we can remember both states simultaneously.
Thinking about these things in these terms have implications to some key concepts, such as 'sense of self'. That in turn changes the relationship between objects we sense and the mental representations of that object.

You might ask what basis we have to compare thoughts to quantum superposition. For now, all I can say is that the comparison fits to a point, and there is a similarity shared by quantum superposition and thought.
Both exist and have an impact on reality, yet both are formless, have no mass, and occupy no space.

All this is part of a bigger idea I've been playing with. It's the subject of the thread 'consciousness, again'. Basically, I want a metaphysical explanation of reality based on quantum physics, rather than classical physics. 'Quantum metaphysics', so to speak. The core assumption is that our senses operate on the quantum scale, which to my estimation is a fairly reasonable assumption.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 10:58 am
@Razzleg,
I can't explain as well as Cyracuz, but that's the whole idea of human reality.

What we perceive are manifestations of the limits of human biology. Objective and subjective are human identities that may have no relevance in space and time.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 08:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
C.I., I agree that our experience of Reality can never be other than human reality--our personally and collectively constituted realities-- something that, as you say, manifests the limits of our biology. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 02:56 pm
@Cyracuz,

I asked this question:
Quote:
But is there a difference between an object and the perception of that object?


Quote:
Let me try to clarify. If you see a ball, and later you recall it in your memory, is it the same ball? Is the object you think about the same object you saw, or is it an unrelated mental representation?


NO

Quote:
We all know that there are many ways to spin this. But if we borrow some concepts from quantum physics, we might get another result. If we think of the ball as a quantum system existing in it's definite state, we can compare all perceptions of it to superpositions of that quantum system.


NO , we can't

quantum is in the micro , the ball is in the macro , Universe

both are NOT in the same realm

Quote:
It reality, the ball can only occupy one point in space at any one time. But in our minds, the ball can do or be anything we can imagine.


no it can't , the ball can't become a square


Quote:
In a way, we can say that conscious awareness is superpositioned reality, and it is on this background that we understand reality. We can perceive the transition from one state to another, and because we can remember the transition, we can remember both states simultaneously.
Thinking about these things in these terms have implications to some key concepts, such as 'sense of self'. That in turn changes the relationship between objects we sense and the mental representations of that object.


wrong

Quote:
You might ask what basis we have to compare thoughts to quantum superposition. For now, all I can say is that the comparison fits to a point, and there is a similarity shared by quantum superposition and thought.
Both exist and have an impact on reality, yet both are formless, have no mass, and occupy no space.


quantum allows thought

Quote:
All this is part of a bigger idea I've been playing with. It's the subject of the thread 'consciousness, again'. Basically, I want a metaphysical explanation of reality based on quantum physics, rather than classical physics. 'Quantum metaphysics', so to speak. The core assumption is that our senses operate on the quantum scale, which to my estimation is a fairly reasonable assumption.


sure but quantum doesn't distort the object upon which we see and/or perceive

a ball is a ball is a ball
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 03:16 pm
@north,
You wrote,
Quote:
no it can't , the ball can't become a square


But by your very mention of it shows it can become a square. Human perception can look at objects in many different ways, but we are still limited by our physical/mental limitations, perceptions, and imagination.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 03:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,

You wrote,
Quote:
no it can't , the ball can't become a square


Quote:
But by your very mention of it shows it can become a square.


how , I mean physically ?

Quote:
Human perception can look at objects in many different ways, but we are still limited by our physical/mental limitations, perceptions, and imagination.


non-sense

we are limited by the physical reality of limitations of the objects themselves
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 03:30 pm
@north,
How physically? In your mind's eye. That's all inclusive of human perception; it can perceive things that has no value "except to other humans."
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 03:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

How physically? In your mind's eye. That's all inclusive of human perception; it can perceive things that has no value "except to other humans."


but that does not transform a ball to a square
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:10 pm
@north,
Why does it have to? It's still in the perception of the person "seeing" it.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Why does it have to?


because the quantum , is still its basis

Quote:
It's still in the perception of the person "seeing" it.


look

the shape of the object is what it is , you can't change this , you can't cic , if this were possible then we would be chaos , were not , now the colour and/or the size may come in question

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:34 pm
@north,
We're talking about the human mind; it can do almost anything we can imagine. Human reality is a very complex set of neurons that allows humans to imagine things that do not exist in "reality."

Only humans are capable of communicating ideas that do not physically exist.

Have you ever seen the Christian god?

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:39 pm
No problem: I just turned my thought of a circle into the thought of a square. And there are no spheres and squares other than as thoughts.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

We're talking about the human mind; it can do almost anything we can imagine. Human reality is a very complex set of neurons that allows humans to imagine things that do not exist in "reality."


your talking psychology here , are you not ? which is a whole different ball game

Quote:
Only humans are capable of communicating ideas that do not physically exist.


sure , but that does not take away from the fact that there is a fundamental reality of which we a part , which exists in the without , and intern is part of us

the need for water , air , food or energy intake

Quote:
Have you ever seen the Christian god?


no , but irrelevent to this discussion



north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:49 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

No problem: I just turned my thought of a circle into the thought of a square. And there are no spheres and squares other than as thoughts.


okay

now do this physically , for as long as you live
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 04:59 pm
@north,
Yes, I'm talking psychology, because that's how we understand the human mind. It allows us to understand the limitations of humans, and what we call our reality.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 05:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I'm talking psychology, because that's how we understand the human mind. It allows us to understand the limitations of humans, and what we call our reality.


sure

but that ology doesn't take away the reality of what is real

the ball is still , a ball
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 07:13:28