9
   

Trick of the Language?

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 05:23 pm
@MattDavis,
It would be true because reality is not "out there", waiting to be seen and heard and smelled. Nor is in "inside our minds". It is in the perceiving. Reality is a phenomenon of relationships, not a thing in itself.
Those who refuse to entertain this notion often bring the objection that even if every last human were to vanish, the world would still be the same. But the truth is that we cannot know that. All we have to go on is how the world appears to us, and that is a matter of awareness and perception.

What I am leaning against is something mystics in the east have known forever. Awareness is a prerequisite for experiencing what you call ontic reality. And reality is the experience itself, not it's parts. Thinking of something beyond the senses, a "fundamental reality" that lies beyond perception, has little or no value, as such a thing is by definition irrelevant.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 10:51 pm
@Cyracuz,
Yes, Cyr, that the world is not observer-dependent is the central denial of naive realism. If every human were to vanish there would certainly be no world as we conceive/perceive it to be. I too have no sense of what it could be in non-human terms.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 11:32 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Reality is a phenomenon of relationships...

I can certainly agree that reality seems to be relational. I don't see that "consciousness" is necessary for relationship. It seems that models work quite well without that assumption.
I am not denying that consciousness (subjective reality) is a very real and important development.
I simply don't see how non-realist assumptions have more predictive power.
If "prediction and control" is the constructivist definition of facts, constructionism seems less factual than realism.
I don't see any constructivist models that allow for greater prediction.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:49 am
@MattDavis,
The very idea of constructing (over time) places time/space in a holy place, as a pre condition necessary for constructors to construct...it debunks nothing !
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 05:14 am
@MattDavis,
Quote:
I am not denying that consciousness (subjective reality) is a very real and important development.


Here you are assuming that consciousness is an attribute of the subject. The idea that the subject has consciousness doesn't exclude the event of consciousness existing in other things as well.

Quote:
I don't see that "consciousness" is necessary for relationship.


I see relationship as a thing of consciousness. But there are variations of consciousness. There is consciousness of consciousness, which is what humans have. Then there is consciousness in the sense presence and the ability to react to change. This kind of awareness is in all things.

I realize I am speaking of assumptions here, and I cannot claim that I really know any of this. But does consciousness have to be focused around something that knows it is conscious in order for it to be consciousness?
If you say yes, then you pretty much equate consciousness with sense of self.
If you say no, then why does consciousness have to be dependent on such a focus?
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 07:52 am
@Cyracuz,
there is always smthg else, which is more true so free as the constant stand the true individual right
conscious is truth existence reality rights that any individual freedom right is obliged to consciously bc it is about truth rights so smthg objectively proven already to any perspective of minds
conscious freedom are two different things makin one existence stand so possible present reality in constant terms
conscious mean freedom rights relation with objective rights forms
freedom mean conscious rights relation to true present independance from all

existence is about freedom rights when freedom is consciously standin, so always able to take whole responsability of its moves and stands realisations

so talkin about consciousness without its essential reason being freedom is clearly meanin to advocate creations by killin the truth that is why u dont even mention the source of conscious being simply the recognition given to else existence fact as the reason of self relative existence effect



0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 11:22 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
The idea that the subject has consciousness doesn't exclude the event of consciousness existing in other things as well.
Absolutely, according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 12:45 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Ok. Lets get to cosmogeny Very Happy
I think that if one were to look "objectively" at reality, time would of course be absent from such a "perspective". The totality of all possible computational space (static) would be "seen". Our "visible universe" would be a subset of that computational space. This is a model which seems quite capable of representing reality without having to invoke something as complex as "consciousness" axiomatically. It also allows for discreteness rather than continuousness. Discreteness(quantumness) seems simpler than continuousness(infinity in everything). All physical evidence seems to still indicate that nothing in the universe is continuous. If I see evidence of non-discreteness in the universe, I will re-evalutate such a view.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 12:49 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Here you are assuming that consciousness is an attribute of the subject. The idea that the subject has consciousness doesn't exclude the event of consciousness existing in other things as well.

Why not skip the middle man here, and jump directly to relationship? You are simply reducing the term 'consciousness' to mean relationship. Why the circumlocutions? If you want to say that 'consciousness' exists in everything, but mean that everything interacts relationally, then I don't disagree.
I call that interaction not consciousness.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 12:55 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
But does consciousness have to be focused around something that knows it is conscious in order for it to be consciousness?

That will of course depend on what you mean by "consciousness". I do agree that conscious system seem to be self-aware to the limits of their ability. They require a self-representation. You might call such a representation an ego. Most wisdom traditions focus on training the ego to self-identify with a progressively larger and larger system.
That is a matter of ethics/spirituality (which I have great admiration for), reaching an understanding regarding the workings of reality do not discredit the importance of that.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:22 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
You are simply reducing the term 'consciousness' to mean relationship.


Let's say that I am. Then what is the context of these relationships?
What would be relating? Keep in mind that even physical objects only exist within a very specific relational bond.
We can think of reality in terms of information processing information. Everything is information, and everything can relate to everything else, and through this interaction reality emerges. This reality is neither physical nor conscious. Both of those are merely expressions of relationships made possible because the potential for both is present.

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:27 pm
@MattDavis,
I do not believe that we can disregard the 'spiritual' when we try to reach an understanding regarding the workings of reality.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:54 pm
@MattDavis,
Yes I fully agree that the discrete model is the only one who makes sense, the continuous model completely drives me nuts...and yes a binary string of code in 1 dimensional axis is all it takes to describe such a thing, including all other dimensions...I call it the Axis of Order. (I come up with this idea for almost 10 years now and still keep thinking is the best simpler way of describing our reality)
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:57 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Keep in mind that even physical objects only exist within a very specific relational bond.
We can think of reality in terms of information processing information. Everything is information, and everything can relate to everything else, and through this interaction reality emerges. This reality is neither physical nor conscious.
I agree with all of that. What is being related is 'information' quantized "packets" of information. Distinction is no different than relationship. Quanta and qualia is a false dichotomy.
This does not disqualify 'consciousness' emerging, but it does not take consciousness as axiomatic.
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:58 pm
existence is always through else real, what is true is always objective result so never a will nor oneself, which also prove how individual freedom is parallel existence to truth
that is how relationships could b free from conscious means, else existence recognition is all to oneself freedom kindness

while spiritual life is exclusively one rejection to the concept even of else existence, mostly i guess for powers and easy way to claim being positively someone
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 03:59 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
I do not believe that we can disregard the 'spiritual' when we try to reach an understanding regarding the workings of reality.
I don't disregard spirituality in regards to epistemic reality.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:03 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Have you checked out Steven Wolfram's A New Kind of Science?
It is kind of a dense book, and his writing style is not exactly polished (not that mine is), but I think it would resonate with you.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:08 pm
@imans,
I think I kind of following your reasoning Imans.
I don't disagree that 'free-will' and morality are intimately related to "spirituality". I do disagree that spirituality implies a sort of dualism of self and "spirit".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:10 pm
@MattDavis,
I know Wolfram from Ted talks from some couple of years now I have yet to read the book but his work seams to be of major importance...I tend to side him with Benoit Mandelbrot, Feynman, Alan Turing, Cantor and the likes...
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:17 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I will see if I can find the part of his book, where he discusses some of the serendipitous discoveries in cellular automata models. There is an explanation of how an absolute maximum "velocity" (within the system) is required, as well as the obvious ability to disregard "time" (objective of the system).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 01:40:05