The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:42 am
Agent Smith wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:09 am
The Golden Rule is a good principle but as a standalone maxim, it is not foolproof.

To Hitler, "loving Jews" or "loving one's enemies" would be a hateful idea which is against his ideology to him.
When Hitler follows the Golden Rule, he would never love the Jews nor love his enemies.
That is why he has no hesitation to kill Jews and his enemies which is evidently the case.
You mean to say Hitler would've wanted the Jews to hate him? :?:
Not that.

I meant,
to suggest to Hitler "to love Jews" would be a hateful idea to Hitler.

Say, you suggest to Hitler,

You to Hitler: I suggest loving Jews would be a good idea.
Hitler to You: I hate that such a suggestion / idea. It is a hateful idea.
Though he'd probably frame the whole idea as loving the German people. How do we protect the German people?

It seems like there is an implict: my morals are better because they focus on love and Hitler focuses on hate. But now we need to justify that. If we are claiming some kind of objectivity. Further any love based set of morals will have aggressive actions suggested. Unless you are complete pacifists who manage to eat without killing which is just not possible unless you head out into the woods alone.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:19 am Facts are meanings; thus, they are subjective; the physical world is also subjective; we call this subjective world apparent reality. The subjective evaluations made by biological consciousness are the meanings of what is experienced by a conscious subject. The conscious subject is within a field of energy and how those energies alter the biology/body of a conscious subject is what is experienced as objects by a conscious subject. All meanings are experiences of the body due to the influences of the energies that surround the subject consciousness. So, everything of apparent reality or the physical world is the way it seems relative to its being experienced, the physical world/apparent reality is a biological readout, a readout of subjective experience, the only thing that can be said to be objective is the energies of the physical world and/or the cosmos. They are objective as energies processed through biology, they become subjective objects. This is assuming what is intended in the topic title facts are physical objects or states between objects in the physical world. Perhaps I need to underline, ultimate reality is not a world of objects or the relations between objects; it is but the relations between energies, there are only objects for biological/conscious subjects which is itself an energy field. The moon is energy.
When you lump everything in one para, it is not friendly to read, thus you will not get your message across effectively.

In one perspective [not the ultimate];
all of reality is energy,
it is like, all-of-reality is in a "soup" of energy as one-undifferentiated-thing.

If say, two denser packs of energy emerged from that soup-of-energy to become biological/conscious subjects, they will be conscious of themselves as independent from one another.
But in another perspective of reality, they are not separated nor independent, they are merely a bunch or a pack of energy within the one-undifferentiated-soup-of-energy and interchanging energy from one to the other all the time.

When another large pack of energy [M] emerged, it is only perceived as 'a moon' when the two biological/conscious subjects direct their cognitive functions in the direction of that large pack of energy [M].
If they don't direct their attention and cognitive functions in that specific space and time, there is no moon, but merely a large pack of energy within the one-undifferentiated-soup-of-energy.

A sonar bat when directed its attention to that large pack of energy within that specific space and time, it does not perceive a moon, like humans do. It will cognize whatever is relative to a bat's system of cognition.

In this specific perspective [not the ultimate], The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It, but rather what is there is merely a bunch of energy because what is fundamental to reality as all-there-is is merely generic energy everywhere.

Edited
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Agent Smith »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 8:42 am
Agent Smith wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:09 am
The Golden Rule is a good principle but as a standalone maxim, it is not foolproof.

To Hitler, "loving Jews" or "loving one's enemies" would be a hateful idea which is against his ideology to him.
When Hitler follows the Golden Rule, he would never love the Jews nor love his enemies.
That is why he has no hesitation to kill Jews and his enemies which is evidently the case.
You mean to say Hitler would've wanted the Jews to hate him? :?:
Not that.

I meant,
to suggest to Hitler "to love Jews" would be a hateful idea to Hitler.

Say, you suggest to Hitler,

You to Hitler: I suggest loving Jews would be a good idea.
Hitler to You: I hate that such a suggestion / idea. It is a hateful idea.
Golden rule with a different interpretation. Interesting to say the least. However, we were discussin' the subjectivity/objectivity of morality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:06 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:19 am Facts are meanings; thus, they are subjective; the physical world is also subjective; we call this subjective world apparent reality. The subjective evaluations made by biological consciousness are the meanings of what is experienced by a conscious subject. The conscious subject is within a field of energy and how those energies alter the biology/body of a conscious subject is what is experienced as objects by a conscious subject. All meanings are experiences of the body due to the influences of the energies that surround the subject consciousness. So, everything of apparent reality or the physical world is the way it seems relative to its being experienced, the physical world/apparent reality is a biological readout, a readout of subjective experience, the only thing that can be said to be objective is the energies of the physical world and/or the cosmos. They are objective as energies processed through biology, they become subjective objects. This is assuming what is intended in the topic title facts are physical objects or states between objects in the physical world. Perhaps I need to underline, ultimate reality is not a world of objects or the relations between objects; it is but the relations between energies, there are only objects for biological/conscious subjects which is itself an energy field. The moon is energy.
When you lump everything in one para, it is not friendly to read, thus you will not your message across effectively.

In one perspective [not the ultimate];
all of reality is energy,
it is like, all-of-reality is in a "soup" of energy as one-undifferentiated-thing.

It say, two denser packs of energy emerged from that soup-of-energy to become biological/conscious subjects, they will be conscious of themselves as independent from one another.
But in another perspective of reality, they are not separated nor independent, they are merely a bunch or a pack of energy within the one-undifferentiated-soup-of-energy and interchanging energy from one to the other all the time.

When another large pack of energy [M] emerged, it is only perceived at 'a moon' when the two biological/conscious subjects direct their cognitive functions in the direction of that large pack of energy [M].
If they don't direct their attention and cognitive functions in that specific space and time, there is no moon, but merely a large pack of energy within the one-undifferentiated-soup-of-energy.

A sonar bat when directed its attention to that a large pack of energy within that specific space and time, it does not perceive a moon, like humans do. It will cognize whatever is relative to a bat's system of cognition.

In this specific perspective [not the ultimate], The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It, but rather what is there is merely a bunch of energy because what is fundamental to reality as all-there-is is merely generic energy everywhere.
Veritas,
EXCELLENT! Not precisely the way I would have worded it, I called it the untotality but quite wonderful, and thank you for the heads up on clarity.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:55 pm In one perspective [not the ultimate];
all of reality is energy,
it is like, all-of-reality is in a "soup" of energy as one-undifferentiated-thing.
So, Popeye, he is positing this soup of energy that was present before conscious observers. How could it exist?
It say, two denser packs of energy emerged from that soup-of-energy to become biological/conscious subjects, they will be conscious of themselves as independent from one another.
Here we have dense packs of energy. Without conscious observers, until they suddenly are.

Interesting that when conscious observers came into existence, they came into existence in a world that had a geological record and a fossil record, going back to plants and bacteria before there was even animal life. Why would this be the past seemingly laid out in the earth that is observed? I can see some sort of place for conscious beings to emerge suddenly out of undifferentiated energy, but why something with an unnecessary causal past?
A sonar bat when directed its attention to that a large pack of energy within that specific space and time, it does not perceive a moon, like humans do. It will cognize whatever is relative to a bat's system of cognition.
Well, good to know bats can elicit the collapse into the Moon? But again, how odd that when whatever animal it was emerged, there was this seeming history in the matter of the earth - yes, when it was observed - that pointed to a past before there were bats or some other first consciousness that could elicit objects.
And again, by looking at 'something' : a dense pack of matter.
In this specific perspective [not the ultimate], The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It, but rather what is there is merely a bunch of energy because what is fundamental to reality as all-there-is is merely generic energy everywhere.
Amazing how specific that noticed energy becomes. It becomes something that has a record of the arrival of life forms, eventually showing ones that have consciousness. That is, in the scientific FSK, there is this record of evolution (and a parallel influencing geological evolution) that seems to tell a different story about the arrival of consciousness.

And when the first bat or other animal consciousness looked at the dense pack of energy that became the moon, did it have cratars AND WHY????.

Why would a bat or even earlier humans expect impacts on the Moon? In a past that never existed until they looked?
Veritas,
EXCELLENT! Not precisely the way I would have worded it, I called it the untotality but quite wonderful, and thank you for the heads up on clarity.
I don't see his model as excellent yet. Let's remember that we have undifferentiated matter that suddenly becomes a conscious animal which is also an object. That first consciousness had no one to look it into existence. Nothing to suddenly transform an undifferentiated batch of energy into a furry rodent or comb jelly (the latter thought of as the first animal). What transformed the first animal life form by perceiving it out of the undifferentiated mass of energy? And why did it also give it food?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by popeye1945 »

I don't see his model as excellent yet. Let's remember that we have undifferentiated matter that suddenly becomes a conscious animal which is also an object. That first consciousness had no one to look it into existence. Nothing to suddenly transform an undifferentiated batch of energy into a furry rodent or comb jelly (the latter thought of as the first animal). What transformed the first animal life form by perceiving it out of the undifferentiated mass of energy? And why did it also give it food? [/quote]

Energies that don't differentiated go unsensed most energies tend to be unmanifested as matter/object. Energy is obviously the creator as there apparently is nothing else. Life apparently began in a primordial pool with the first replicating molecule. At that point of time the pond was abundant in elementary particles/energies with which this self-replicating molecule could maintain itself and reproduce. With time and mutation, the self-replicating molecule became many and varied and eventually all there was; was self-replicating molecules and so began the process of life lives upon life.

To my way of thinking all is energy, and for the organism certain kinds of energy experienced and processed through the body and its understanding is the world of objects but objects only for biological consciousness. For just as there is no such thing as sound or color in the physical world. So, too, there are no objects including oneself as body in the physical world, for what you are is energy experiencing other forms of energy and the energy that you are is somewhat the same kind as all the objects that you experience in the physical world. One reacts to other energy forms or fields and your biological reactions are the objects you see and touch in the physical world. This process makes biology the measure and meaning of all things, for things/objects are how these energies affect one's biology/energy, it is you might say, the union of subject and object as a union of energies.
CIN
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:59 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by CIN »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:02 am The moon does not exist if biological consciousness does not look at it, that is not to say there is nothing there; there would perhaps be an energy field but it would not manifest as an object if not processed through biological consciousness. For just as there is no sound or color in the physical world there are no objects, it is the same process.
In other words, the Moon exists, but it doesn't look the way it looks to humans if humans aren't looking at it. Well, gosh. Who would have guessed?

If that is what VA means, then he should apologise to us all for falsely claiming that the Moon does not exist and thereby wasting everyone's time.
CIN
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:59 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by CIN »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:02 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:20 am Philosophical Realists like Peter Holmes and gang insist all facts are mind-independent. Since morality is mind-dependent, objective moral facts do not exist.
Without objective facts, there is no objective moral facts to drive moral progress efficiently.
To repeat - and to be ignored again - there's no evidence for the existence of the mind as a different, non-physical substance. So the expressions mind-dependence and mind-independence are incoherent. VA is straw-manning my argument.

And the claim that all facts are brain-dependent, including the existence of brains, is laughable gibberish.
Noted, forgot about your specific and dogmatic meaning of "what is mind" re Descartes' dualism but note,
I had mentioned before, when I write 'mind-independent' it meant independent of the human conditions.

My claim is all facts [not your perverted definition of fact] are conditioned upon a specific FSK, i.e. a collective of humans.
As such all facts are entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions.
Peter's definition of fact is not perverted, it's the standard definition:

fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact)

Nothing in that definition about being "entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions", is there?

You are the one, not Peter, who is attempting to pervert the meaning of the word 'fact'.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:02 am There is no fact-in-itself, i.e. there is no God-eyes-view facts.
There can be no justification for a ridiculous claim like this. In effect you are claiming that the entire past of the universe before humans appeared simply did not happen. You are also effectively claiming that there is no life anywhere else in the universe, because humans have not yet discovered it.

You are also effectively claiming that this is the only universe, because humans have not discovered another. But now suppose we found evidence that the multiverse theory is true. This would provide a solution to the spooky-action-at-a-distance which we know exists, because all possible solutions to the collapse of the wave function would occur in some universe. Yet by your theory this ought to be impossible, because it would mean that a fact-in-itself of which no humans are currently aware (the actual existence of the multiverse) was responsible for something of which humans are aware (spooky action at a distance).

Your definition of 'fact' not only would not allow for the existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts; it would actually make it impossible to talk about as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts, because 'as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans fact' would be a contradiction. Imagine what human history would have been like if this had been the case. No discovery of unknown lands, because the notion of an unknown land would involve a contradiction; no motivation to find new drugs, because the notion of an unknown drug would be contradictory; no reason to do science, because how can you find out anything new when the whole idea that there might be as yet undiscovered facts is contradictory?

Actually, your theory simply collapses into idealism. If there are no facts beyond human experience, then there can be no universe which we are not currently experiencing. Esse can only be percipi. Congratulations — Berkeley would be proud of you! But the problem with your theory is the same problem that always haunts idealism: if there are only minds, then what is it that organises our sense-experience so that it appears to us that there is a physical universe? Berkeley could only sustain his theory by postulating a God who does this; but there is less evidence for God than for the physical universe, so this is a backward step. What, in your theory, causes sense-experience to seem to be of a physical universe, if the physical universe is itself created by human experience? How do you avoid the charge of explanatory circularity?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by popeye1945 »

CIN wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:59 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 2:02 am The moon does not exist if biological consciousness does not look at it, that is not to say there is nothing there; there would perhaps be an energy field but it would not manifest as an object if not processed through biological consciousness. For just as there is no sound or color in the physical world there are no objects, it is the same process.
In other words, the Moon exists, but it doesn't look the way it looks to humans if humans aren't looking at it. Well, gosh. Who would have guessed?

If that is what VA means, then he should apologise to us all for falsely claiming that the Moon does not exist and thereby wasting everyone's time.
That is a rather moronic evaluation, the moon exists as energy, not as a manifest object for it needs biological consciousness to manifest as the subjective object.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Iwannaplato »

Me:
I don't see his model as excellent yet. Let's remember that we have undifferentiated matter that suddenly becomes a conscious animal which is also an object. That first consciousness had no one to look it into existence. Nothing to suddenly transform an undifferentiated batch of energy into a furry rodent or comb jelly (the latter thought of as the first animal). What transformed the first animal life form by perceiving it out of the undifferentiated mass of energy? And why did it also give it food?
You:
Energies that don't differentiated go unsensed most energies tend to be unmanifested as matter/object. Energy is obviously the creator as there apparently is nothing else. Life apparently began in a primordial pool with the first replicating molecule. At that point of time the pond was abundant in elementary particles/energies with which this self-replicating molecule could maintain itself and reproduce. With time and mutation, the self-replicating molecule became many and varied and eventually all there was; was self-replicating molecules and so began the process of life lives upon life.
Well, this raises some questions':
1) How was there a pool before there was any consciousness to notice it?
2) What is this self-replicating molecule? Perhaps you don't know the exact one, but the category perhaps? How was this able to manifest out of undifferentiated energy? What perceived it? Why is self-replication the same as consciousness? Is this a way of saying DNA? If it is, how did the first DNA molecule arise out of undifferentiated energy? What perceived it into existence?

3) And if it is DNA, why have a planet arise around it? A history of the universe left if various ways we can now infer?
4) It's a very complicated molecule, compared to water say. It popped into existence with nothing before it in time. Nothing. With no precursors. How random! No RNA or nucleic acids appeared before it did.

IOW you didn't really address my objection. You just shifted the problem back in time. But the problem is still there. This complicated something pops into existence and it has no milieu to be in, no precursors and for some reason where it arises ends up having a history that goes back before it.

Unless this self-replicating molecule isn't DNA in your model, that is.
To my way of thinking all is energy, and for the organism certain kinds of energy experienced and processed through the body and its understanding is the world of objects but objects only for biological consciousness. For just as there is no such thing as sound or color in the physical world. So, too, there are no objects including oneself as body in the physical world, for what you are is energy experiencing other forms of energy and the energy that you are is somewhat the same kind as all the objects that you experience in the physical world.
People who have a model of the outside world tend to focus on color, first, then sound, because it's easier to dismiss the phonemenon as mere qualia. As interpretations. It's not as easy as volume.
One reacts to other energy forms
Why do we keep finding the same objects when we go into spaces. I go in an see the toilet and the sink near each other. You go in and see the sink and toilet near each other. Why doesn't the bathroom condense out of undifferentiated energy into a kitchen - even if it's my first time in that bathroom?

VA is not going far enough. He's accepting just enough of an alterative belief to criticize PH, but he's not really thinking through the implications. He's gonna have to go weirder or other people will see this.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

CIN wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 1:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:02 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:01 am
To repeat - and to be ignored again - there's no evidence for the existence of the mind as a different, non-physical substance. So the expressions mind-dependence and mind-independence are incoherent. VA is straw-manning my argument.

And the claim that all facts are brain-dependent, including the existence of brains, is laughable gibberish.
Noted, forgot about your specific and dogmatic meaning of "what is mind" re Descartes' dualism but note,
I had mentioned before, when I write 'mind-independent' it meant independent of the human conditions.

My claim is all facts [not your perverted definition of fact] are conditioned upon a specific FSK, i.e. a collective of humans.
As such all facts are entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions.
Peter's definition of fact is not perverted, it's the standard definition:

fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/fact)

Nothing in that definition about being "entangled, linked, enjoin and the like with the human conditions", is there?

You are the one, not Peter, who is attempting to pervert the meaning of the word 'fact'.
Note the phrase 'proof exists' and 'there is information' entail the human conditions. There is no proving and no information relating to 'what is fact' if there are no human conditions.

As such the definition above fits my definition of what is fact, i.e.
A fact is always conditioned upon a FSK [grounded on human conditions collectively].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 22, 2023 3:02 am There is no fact-in-itself, i.e. there is no God-eyes-view facts.
There can be no justification for a ridiculous claim like this. In effect you are claiming that the entire past of the universe before humans appeared simply did not happen. You are also effectively claiming that there is no life anywhere else in the universe, because humans have not yet discovered it.

You are also effectively claiming that this is the only universe, because humans have not discovered another. But now suppose we found evidence that the multiverse theory is true. This would provide a solution to the spooky-action-at-a-distance which we know exists, because all possible solutions to the collapse of the wave function would occur in some universe. Yet by your theory this ought to be impossible, because it would mean that a fact-in-itself of which no humans are currently aware (the actual existence of the multiverse) was responsible for something of which humans are aware (spooky action at a distance).

Your definition of 'fact' not only would not allow for the existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts; it would actually make it impossible to talk about as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts, because 'as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans fact' would be a contradiction. Imagine what human history would have been like if this had been the case. No discovery of unknown lands, because the notion of an unknown land would involve a contradiction; no motivation to find new drugs, because the notion of an unknown drug would be contradictory; no reason to do science, because how can you find out anything new when the whole idea that there might be as yet undiscovered facts is contradictory?
I have written elsewhere,
within the common and conventional sense perspective up to Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics, I accept there an reality that is as aspect of reality that is "independent" of the human conditions.
But such a claim of an independent reality cannot be absolute not be ideological and dogmatic.
Point is while these perspectives are independent, they are ultimately linked to the human conditions.
As such, when anyone make such a claim they must qualify their statement.

There are more refined perspective of reality e.g. Quantum Mechanics, where reality defined as all-there-is cannot be independent of the human conditions.
If reality [whatever the facts are] is all-there-is, reality has to be comprised of human beings and the human conditions.
As such, reality, [whatever the facts are] they cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions. [A]

But Peter Holmes & gang [you included] insist A is not the case and you insist reality [whatever the facts are] is absolutely independent of the human conditions as an ideology and stuck with it dogmatically.
Your definition of 'fact' not only would not allow for the existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts; it would actually make it impossible to talk about as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts, because 'as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans fact' would be a contradiction.
"Existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts" is an oxymoron.
"Existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans" are mere speculations of possibilities which nevertheless must be empirically possible.
Who is saying we cannot speculate of whatever?

A speculation or hypothesis can only be a fact when the empirical evidences are verified and justified within a specific FSK.
For example, any newly discovered living things must be conditioned upon the science-biology-FSK to be accepted as a science-biology fact.

"Existence of as-yet-undiscovered-by-humans facts"-in-itself is an oxymoron.
Actually, your theory simply collapses into idealism. If there are no facts beyond human experience, then there can be no universe which we are not currently experiencing. Esse can only be percipi. Congratulations — Berkeley would be proud of you!
But the problem with your theory is the same problem that always haunts idealism: if there are only minds, then what is it that organises our sense-experience so that it appears to us that there is a physical universe?
Berkeley could only sustain his theory by postulating a God who does this; but there is less evidence for God than for the physical universe, so this is a backward step.
What, in your theory, causes sense-experience to seem to be of a physical universe, if the physical universe is itself created by human experience? How do you avoid the charge of explanatory circularity?
Your above is a strawman.

As stated, I can shift perspective from common sense, conventional sense, Newtonian or Einsteinian sense, where is appropriate and optimal. But I don't accept these absolutely as an ideology and dogmatically as you and Peter do. I do not accept a fact-in-itself exists and awaiting discovery by humans.

While you are charging my views as 'idealism' you are ignorant that your views of 'fact-in-itself' is the worst kind of 'idealism'.
There are many forms of idealism where the central idea involves the mind.
You believe there is an objective fact out there emitting waves to be intercepted by your sense organs and your intellect [mind] confirms that fact-in-itself exists out there, i.e.
The point is a philosophical realist can never ever achieve 100% accuracy of reality except to whatever is limited to the ability & capability of the human mind's processing of empirical evidences.

Since the limitation to truth is based on and restricted to your human mind, you are actually an idealist [as defined] and adopting what is called Empirical Idealism.

On the other hand what I am claiming is Empirical Realism, i.e. what is real is conditioned upon the empirical evidences within the specific FSK. There is no 100%-accurate-facts nor reality out there to be approximated to.
What, in your theory, causes sense-experience to seem to be of a physical universe, if the physical universe is itself created by human experience? How do you avoid the charge of explanatory circularity?
Nope, that is a strawman.
I never claimed that whatever is real is created by human experience.

What I claimed is whatever is claimed as real cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.
It is just that you cannot exclude the human factor in claiming what is real or a FSK-conditioned fact, e.g. a scientific-fact.

You cannot claim a scientific-fact is represented by a fact or fact-in-itself out there that is independent of the scientific-fact.
A scientific-fact is a realized fact that is real but conditioned upon the scientific-FSK.

There are the following features of what is a scientific fact or any FSK-conditioned Fact;

1. the realization process of that aspects of reality
2. the realization via a specific FSK,
3. the knowing of the FSK-conditioned fact, e.g. knowing the scientific-fact
4. the description of the FSK-conditioned fact, e.g. the communication of the scientific fact.

The OP "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" highlights the point that the Newtonian nor Einsteinian perspective of reality cannot be a claimed to be absolute, which was what Einstein did and what you are doing.

QM has proven Einstein claimed of an absolute objective independent of the human conditions is wrong, i.e.
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:38 am

You:
Energies that don't differentiated go unsensed most energies tend to be unmanifested as matter/object. Energy is obviously the creator as there apparently is nothing else. Life apparently began in a primordial pool with the first replicating molecule. At that point of time the pond was abundant in elementary particles/energies with which this self-replicating molecule could maintain itself and reproduce. With time and mutation, the self-replicating molecule became many and varied and eventually all there was; was self-replicating molecules and so began the process of life lives upon life.

Well, this raises some questions':
1) How was there a pool before there was any consciousness to notice it?
2) What is this self-replicating molecule? Perhaps you don't know the exact one, but the category perhaps? How was this able to manifest out of undifferentiated energy? What perceived it? Why is self-replication the same as consciousness? Is this a way of saying DNA? If it is, how did the first DNA molecule arise out of undifferentiated energy? What perceived it into existence?
You've not made any transformation in your thinking; the pool is an energy pool. If as science now tells us that it is all energy and that there is nothing else, a transformation in thinking is rather necessary. What does a self-replicating molecule look like, somewhat like a self-replicating human only a whole lot less complex. Energy, there are probably more forms of energy than we will ever know, but if the physicists are correct there really is nothing else. Perhaps no consciousness perceived the first origins of life, the first replicating molecule. Consciousness itself, though few doudt they have it, is still far from understood, and maybe all around us but we lack the intellect to know it. Self-replication is the beginning of life on earth, [opinion here] all organisms are conscious, which would mean, consciousness is life and life is consciousness. Perceived it into existence is a rather tricky thing here, for it represents the processes of biology bringing into existence for itself energies into objects which we can get into later.

3) And if it is DNA, why did a planet arise around it? A history of the universe left if various ways we can now infer?
4) It's a very complicated molecule, compared to water say. It popped into existence with nothing before it in time. Nothing. With no precursors. How random! No RNA or nucleic acids appeared before it did. [/quote]

You have a very active curiosity, excellent! Although I cannot intelligently answer many of your questions. I somehow doubt the DNA molecule popped into existence, as near as I can decern of this world all process, and process is rather time-consuming.

IOW you didn't really address my objection. You just shifted the problem back in time. But the problem is still there. This complicated something pops into existence and it has no milieu to be in, no precursors and for some reason where it arises ends up having a history that goes back before it.
Unless this self-replicating molecule isn't DNA in your model, that is. [/quote]

The first self-replicating molecule might have been the begining of what is now called DNA. You might be wise to google it, there is a site called, "ASK A BIOLOGIST", you no doubt would fare better there.


To my way of thinking all is energy, and for the organism, certain kinds of energy experienced and processed through the body and its understanding is the world of objects but objects only for biological consciousness. For just as there is no such thing as sound or color in the physical world. So, too, there are no objects including oneself as body in the physical world, for what you are is energy experiencing other forms of energy and the energy that you are is somewhat the same kind as all the objects that you experience in the physical world. [/quote]

People who have a model of the outside world tend to focus on color, first, then sound, because it's easier to dismiss the phenomenon as mere qualia. As interpretations. It's not as easy as volume. [/quote]

Volume I would imagine would depend on just how hard the eardrum was violated by the incoming vibrations.
One reacts to other energy forms
Why do we keep finding the same objects when we go into space? I go in and see the toilet and the sink near each other. You go in and see the sink and toilet near each other. Why doesn't the bathroom condense out of undifferentiated energy into a kitchen - even if it's my first time in that bathroom? [/quote]

"Why do we keep finding the same objects when we go into the same spaces." Because we all have the same sensing equipment and the energy field, we observe is stationary. Bathrooms, it is true, are more temporal than mountain ranges but again your active imagination is outstripping my knowledge--lol!! You are wondering from moment to moment why things do not morph into other things, again, there is a site, "ASK A PHYSICIST". Just curious though, where did you get this undifferentiated energy idea, what makes you think energy is undifferentiated?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:45 am You've not made any transformation in your thinking; the pool is an energy pool.
Why label it a pool? Why does he refer to dense areas?
These are things. For some reason neither of you can help but label certain areas in the undifferentiated energy with nouns?
If as science now tells us that it is all energy and that there is nothing else, a transformation in thinking is rather necessary.

And when you tell me I need to transform my thinking, jesus. The idea that everything is energy is as old as Hinduism at least. I've been in contact with that idea since the early 80s. But there are implications in that, and so far VA's model is not taking care of those implications. Hence I ask questions.

What does a self-replicating molecule look like, somewhat like a self-replicating human only a whole lot less complex.
I don't think I asked what it looked like. I wondered what it is, how did it pop into existence, did it have precursors, do molecules look?
Energy, there are probably more forms of energy than we will ever know, but if the physicists are correct there really is nothing else.
I wonder if they'll start calling their philosophy energism any time soon, or will those philosophers who follow them do that.
And there isn't consensus yet. They still talk about matter and energy. I am not saying that those who do that are correct. I am asking questions. I think VA's model is problematic at this stage.
Perhaps no consciousness perceived the first origins of life, the first replicating molecule.

If so, then how could it have happened. The Moon can't exist if no human is conscious of it, but a molecule can? Why?
Consciousness itself, though few doudt they have it, is still far from understood, and maybe all around us but we lack the intellect to know it.
There you go. Panspychism would be one solution. I could be described as a panpsychist. But so far VA has not said anything like that and he hasn't noticed that he does need to say something. My experience is that he tosses ideas out and they may not at all fit with other ideas he has.

Self-replication is the beginning of life on earth,
So, now we have the earth appearing out of undifferentiated energy with the first life forms. Great. But what does that mean? Did the planet arise then? Just the pool of water that life form could see? Why was the temperature in the range of what is possible for life to exist?

I mean, let's really look at what happens in time. First there is undifferentiated energy, then suddenly (before there is the sun or planets or even the earth, there is a little part of the earth, hanging in/surrounded by undifferentiated energy. How does that work? And why do we then find evidence that there was an earth before life was on it? Did the first life retroactively create the past before its arrival? (I am not ruling such a thing out, but something odder than what he is saying needs to be at least acknowledged as missing)
[opinion here] all organisms are conscious, which would mean, consciousness is life and life is consciousness. Perceived it into existence is a rather tricky thing here, for it represents the processes of biology bringing into existence for itself energies into objects which we can get into later.
well, sometime it has to be brought up.
3) And if it is DNA, why did a planet arise around it? A history of the universe left if various ways we can now infer?
4) It's a very complicated molecule, compared to water say. It popped into existence with nothing before it in time. Nothing. With no precursors. How random! No RNA or nucleic acids appeared before it did.
You have a very active curiosity, excellent!
Thank you. That's a peachy way to deal with me. If you can come up with answers or speculations, I'm just happy. And when I ask questions, it doesn't mean I think there can be no answer. Generally I am doing one of two things. 1) I am trying to get the ideas clear. To see if I understand. or 2) (which is more of what I am doing here) point out what I think are areas that need an explanation AND which may not fit with VA's opinions in general. Even if his ideas are supported by recent QM work, I don't think he realizes that something even weirder is likely the case if they are right. Scientists just have to accept the data and see what comes next. But on some level they are, in private, wrestling with the implications. Because the implications don't just go against 'you can't have both local and real', they probably go against fundamental ontological principles that affect all of science.
The first self-replicating molecule might have been the begining of what is now called DNA. You might be wise to google it, there is a site called, "ASK A BIOLOGIST", you no doubt would fare better there.
But a biologist, in general, has not been affected by the ontological issues raised by physicists. So, he will talk about pools of nucleic acids and perhaps lightning or whatever. Some event with materials and conditions that led to precursors that led to...and so on.

He or she is not going to put this in the context of the Moon not being there when we don't look at it.
To my way of thinking all is energy, and for the organism, certain kinds of energy experienced and processed through the body and its understanding is the world of objects but objects only for biological consciousness. For just as there is no such thing as sound or color in the physical world.
Right, there's energy waves of different kinds, generally thought of as moving through matter.
So, too, there are no objects including oneself as body in the physical world, for what you are is energy experiencing other forms of energy and the energy that you are is somewhat the same kind as all the objects that you experience in the physical world.
Yes, here presumably one can argue that the dense form of energy we are coalesces because we experience ourselves. And so might the first organism.

"Why do we keep finding the same objects when we go into the same spaces." Because we all have the same sensing equipment and the energy field, we observe is stationary.
But undifferentiated. The moment we are not looking at it. Yet it comes back as a bathroom. I could ask someone from deep in the amazonian jungle who has never seen a modern bathroom to go in my bathroom and come out with an object. And it will be one of the ones I know is in there. Why not a bush he's used to. A capybara. A snake.
Bathrooms, it is true, are more temporal than mountain ranges but again your active imagination is outstripping my knowledge--lol!!
That's fine. It outstrips mine.

I think a couple of things are necessary to be added to his ideas and I doubt he will like them. Though perhaps in 5 years he will.
1) something to explain the first objects, how things arose? If objects are dependent on perceivers than we get something that not only creates itself (a characteristic only attributed to God) but also creates the conditions for its own life AND seemingly the traces of a past of things before it existed. One way to solve this is panpsychism. Then you have perception all the way back. There may be other solutions.
2) I think you need entangled perceivers. I leave open if this entanglement has anything in common with particle entanglement. But something needs to explain why there is at least so much overlap between the object we make. It's not chaos out there. I don't see you climb into a horse, when you experience yourself climb into a car. We find the same bathrooms, if there are cultural and personal differences in the qualia and what we notice. Still we can have unbelievably coherent conversations about objects and spaces and places.

You are wondering from moment to moment why things do not morph into other things, again, there is a site, "ASK A PHYSICIST". Just curious though, where did you get this undifferentiated energy idea, what makes you think energy is undifferentiated?
From VA
he used it here...
In one perspective [not the ultimate];
all of reality is energy,
it is like, all-of-reality is in a "soup" of energy as one-undifferentiated-thing.

If say, two denser packs of energy emerged from that soup-of-energy to become biological/conscious subjects, they will be conscious of themselves as independent from one another.
and I think with different words the idea has appeared a number of times in his posts.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:38 am




Well, this raises some questions':
1) How was there a pool before there was any consciousness to notice it?
2) What is this self-replicating molecule? Perhaps you don't know the exact one, but the category perhaps? How was this able to manifest out of undifferentiated energy? What perceived it? Why is self-replication the same as consciousness? Is this a way of saying DNA? If it is, how did the first DNA molecule arise out of undifferentiated energy? What perceived it into existence?

1-The existence of energy is not dependent upon consciousness. I did not say that self-replication was the same as consciousness though one might conjecture it was the birth of consciousness, it somehow developed a need and the ability to seek out that need in the event of the beginning of life lives upon life. As too much of your questioning, science has not answered much in the way of the origin even the self-replicating molecule is conjecture I think--- or best answer so far.


You've not made any transformation in your thinking; the pool is an energy pool. If as science now tells us that it is all energy and that there is nothing else, a transformation in thinking is rather necessary. What does a self-replicating molecule look like, somewhat like a self-replicating human only a whole lot less complex. Energy, there are probably more forms of energy than we will ever know, but if the physicists are correct there really is nothing else. Perhaps no consciousness perceived the first origins of life, the first replicating molecule. Consciousness itself, though few doudt they have it, is still far from understood, and maybe all around us but we lack the intellect to know it. Self-replication is the beginning of life on earth, [opinion here] all organisms are conscious, which would mean, consciousness is life and life is consciousness. Perceived it into existence is a rather tricky thing here, for it represents the processes of biology bringing into existence for itself energies into objects which we can get into later.

3) And if it is DNA, why did a planet arise around it? A history of the universe left if various ways we can now infer?
4) It's a very complicated molecule, compared to water say. It popped into existence with nothing before it in time. Nothing. With no precursors. How random! No RNA or nucleic acids appeared before it did. [/quote]

The planet as object arose around biological consciousness but the planet is a manifestation of energy that arises in consciousness. Any precursors to the manifestation of biology would be on an energy level, perhaps a subatomic level, science is just now entertaining this realm.

You have a very active curiosity, excellent! Although I cannot intelligently answer many of your questions. I somehow doubt the DNA molecule popped into existence, as near as I can decern of this world all process, and process is rather time-consuming.

IOW you didn't really address my objection. You just shifted the problem back in time. But the problem is still there. This complicated something pops into existence and it has no milieu to be in, no precursors and for some reason where it arises ends up having a history that goes back before it.
Unless this self-replicating molecule isn't DNA in your model, that is. [/quote]

The DNA molecule is a very complex molecule perhaps the beginning of which was possibly to be found in the first replicating molecule. Energies are the precursors of all things/objects.


The first self-replicating molecule might have been the begining of what is now called DNA. You might be wise to google it, there is a site called, "ASK A BIOLOGIST", you no doubt would fare better there.


To my way of thinking all is energy, and for the organism, certain kinds of energy experienced and processed through the body and its understanding is the world of objects but objects only for biological consciousness. For just as there is no such thing as sound or color in the physical world. So, too, there are no objects including oneself as body in the physical world, for what you are is energy experiencing other forms of energy and the energy that you are is somewhat the same kind as all the objects that you experience in the physical world. [/quote]

People who have a model of the outside world tend to focus on color, first, then sound, because it's easier to dismiss the phenomenon as mere qualia. As interpretations. It's not as easy as volume. [/quote]

Volume I would imagine would depend on just how hard the eardrum was violated by the incoming vibrations.
One reacts to other energy forms
Why do we keep finding the same objects when we go into space? I go in and see the toilet and the sink near each other. You go in and see the sink and toilet near each other. Why doesn't the bathroom condense out of undifferentiated energy into a kitchen - even if it's my first time in that bathroom? [/quote]

"Why do we keep finding the same objects when we go into the same spaces." Because we all have the same sensing equipment and the energy field, we observe is stationary. Bathrooms, it is true, are more temporal than mountain ranges but again your active imagination is outstripping my knowledge--lol!! You are wondering from moment to moment why things do not morph into other things, again, there is a site, "ASK A PHYSICIST". Just curious though, where did you get this undifferentiated energy idea, what makes you think energy is undifferentiated?
[/quote]
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 3:58 pm I did not say that self-replication was the same as consciousness though one might conjecture it was the birth of consciousness, it somehow developed a need and the ability to seek out that need in the event of the beginning of life lives upon life.
Yes, you didn't say it, but if it wasn't conscious, how was there something to replicate itself with. If we have some molecule or organism, a very simple one, and it can self-replicate, either
it is conscious and thus can create food or materials out of which makes more of itself
or
it isn't conscious and then....there are no things to replicate itself with.

IOW I don't see how positing a self-replicating molecule makes sense yet.
You've not made any transformation in your thinking; the pool is an energy pool.
Calling it a pool makes it sound like it is differentiated. What is an object but a pool of energy? It's not a pool or something has already coalesced. If it is separate, then it is differentiated. If it is dense then it is differentiated.

As far as me not having made any transformation in my thinking: if I'd need something to transform it to. I am asking questions related to these ideas. I find them incomplete at best, but also they don't seem to make sense. How did the first conscious something arise in universe without any objects. Here we have organic life arising before inorganic matter. That needs a lot of justification.

I understand that science doesn't know yet about the moment life began. But everywhere we see life, we see it adapted to inorganic nature. We also have what seem to be geological records of periods before there were organic compounds. We also have astronomical evidence of inorganic matter and objects that are older than life on earth. So, some very important idea is missing.

I understand t hat there may not be any empirical evidence. But the posited process - Suddenly out of undifferentiated energy a conscious life form appears AND right after or simultaneously the stuff it needs to survive and reproduce is there also.

That's almost Biblical.
If as science now tells us that it is all energy and that there is nothing else, a transformation in thinking is rather necessary. What does a self-replicating molecule look like, somewhat like a self-replicating human only a whole lot less complex. Energy, there are probably more forms of energy than we will ever know, but if the physicists are correct there really is nothing else. Perhaps no consciousness perceived the first origins of life, the first replicating molecule.
If that is the case, then that goes directly against VA's idea.
Consciousness itself, though few doudt they have it, is still far from understood, and maybe all around us
Yes, as I said, panpsychism is one possible solution.
but we lack the intellect to know it. Self-replication is the beginning of life on earth, [opinion here] all organisms are conscious, which would mean, consciousness is life and life is consciousness. Perceived it into existence is a rather tricky thing here, for it represents the processes of biology bringing into existence for itself energies into objects which we can get into later.
Yup, perceived into existence is tricky. There's the rub. My thinking would transform if I heard an explanation for that.

I actually agree with much of the position - my opinion - but I think it HAS to have something radically different from current scientific models, even including VA's anti-realist ones to make any sense.

How did that first life arise?
The planet as object arose around biological consciousness
So, the first life appeared before the earth is was later on?
Post Reply