4
   

Relationship or field as the sole quanta of reality?

 
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:59 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
As Einstein implied, observers tend to carry their own frames of reference around with them which of course is antithetical to naive realism.
Quote:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."


I feel like a major problem with the extreme Copenhagen/deconstructionist views requiring total reliance upon an observer, is that it does a very poor job of explaining the "how" of all the universe 'prior' to humans.
Have we(realists) "constructed" such an elaborate cosmological story in order to make our phenomenological existence coherent?
It seems to me more intuitive to postulate that something external to consciousness developed consciousness, and this consciousness is now how we view that external reality (and internal reality too).
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 11:06 am
@MattDavis,
See my answer on other thread. "Consciousness" can be taken as "that which experiences".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 11:23 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

See my answer on other thread. "Consciousness" can be taken as "that which experiences".


As vague as that is equally we could state that "God" is the mathematical sum of all things or UNITY itself and not be to much wrong on the claim...
There is nothing clear on which distinguishing experience from conscience in the sense that ultimately both words portray in meaning implicit the idea of relation or interaction...Thus saying that there is an experience and an experiencer serves more grammatical purposes then a true clarification on ontological category's...
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 11:26 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

See my answer on other thread. "Consciousness" can be taken as "that which experiences".

If both are dependent which comes first and how... the experience or the 'that which experiences'?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 11:37 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

fresco wrote:

See my answer on other thread. "Consciousness" can be taken as "that which experiences".

If both are dependent which comes first and how... the experience or the 'that which experiences'?


That's the point in favor of naive realism as a method of analyzing reality...Realism and materialism only claims things and phenomena are it does or it shouldn't much care about the distinction between observers and observed...in the end you are left with bits and pieces and pure interaction as both experiencer and experience, things and subjects, are reduced to phenomena. As the experience, being the trade result, the added value of an interaction between 2 or more systems, 2 or more "agents", can well itself be considered an "agent" in some other context...there is no absolute place older for subject or object other then contextual frames of reference.

...it comes to mind the distinction between matter an energy and how both can mutually interchange...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:03 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
The very concept of what "Life" is has progressively become more blurred the more we understand how complex systems work, a trend that perhaps in the next decades will increase the difficulty in clarifying what we mean with such wording...although flocks of birds behave with intelligent patterns, and we could instead very well talk just about the weather, where is the Intelligent conscience in them if there is no central coordinator ?
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 04:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

... the added value of an interaction between 2 or more systems, 2 or more "agents", can well itself be considered an "agent" in some other context...there is no absolute place older for subject or object other then contextual frames of reference.

Fil, if there are two or more systems are they dependent and able to interact? If so aren't they 'one system' described in two or more different ways to give the appearance of two or more systems, when if fact they 'must' be one system, wouldn't you agree?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 05:32 pm
@igm,
Absolutely the usage of 2 systems coinage is just to bring some sense into what is trying to be conveyed, once I must represent dynamics and interaction in a meaningful way...depending on the level of resolution you are looking at you can have different representations of any sub system in the "meta-system"...equally we could inquire about ourselves, each of us is one person, several personality's, or part of a social larger web of intelligence, and to what extent is a metropolis not a living being itself ? It all very much depends on what level is the function you want to address in order to establish what is what and doing what as it is perceived from that resolution point of view...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 05:37 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
oh wait...was that a "tricksy" very mean question about "God" ? Mr. Green
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 07:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
No Fil, and thanks for your reply!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 06:15:33