|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 5, 2019 11:43:31 GMT
At any rate, looking in the box is not what determines the cat's state. Exactly. This issue gets so distorted in the press about QM it drives me crazy.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 556
|
Post by gw on Jun 5, 2019 20:26:02 GMT
While we can be sure that our own existence is real there is a question of how real our existence is. Obviously I can't prove that anybody else truly exists but I have to assume based on the input from my senses. For all we know we could be machines that have a limited set of false prerecorded sensations that stretch from our beginning to our end and believe in a false reality that doesn't exist beyond our own limited perceptions. I'm not sure how much that would matter seeing as the alternative is the selves we perceive are the products of matter that moves a certain way and regardless of whether there's a specific fate in store, there's still no way to break the chain of influence that brought you to where you are. So at least from your individual perspective it might not really matter which is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 23:59:44 GMT
like...can you see me now? this thread I mean... some days it's hard to tell... I'm not certain. I think you do. But I'm only certain that I exist.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 13, 2019 0:51:44 GMT
like...can you see me now? this thread I mean... some days it's hard to tell... I'm not certain. I think you do. But I'm only certain that I exist. Being certain doesn't make it so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 11:15:36 GMT
I'm not certain. I think you do. But I'm only certain that I exist. Being certain doesn't make it so. No it doesn't. But I am certain because I know it is so.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 24, 2019 0:17:54 GMT
" If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" That question has always annoyed me. Yes, of course it does. It does not need to be heard to exist. It depends on what you mean by "sound." The question is posed by people who are defining "sound" as the mental impression left by pressure waves in the air on the human mind, not just the pressure waves in the air themselves. Also with light, it might pass through space informing no one of anything or it might start a reaction in a human eye that is eventually conveyed to a human mind. Many "scientists" prefer to avoid this speculation since it evades their methods of testing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2019 0:34:59 GMT
That question has always annoyed me. Yes, of course it does. It does not need to be heard to exist. It depends on what you mean by "sound." The question is posed by people who are defining "sound" as the mental impression left by pressure waves in the air on the human mind, not just the pressure waves in the air themselves. Also with light, it might pass through space informing no one of anything or it might start a reaction in a human eye that is eventually conveyed to a human mind. Many "scientists" prefer to avoid this speculation since it evades their methods of testing. The reception is not what makes the transmission.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Jun 24, 2019 3:02:47 GMT
I start to doubt a person's existence when they don't know how to spell. Doesn't seem like human failure to me, it seems more like a computer glitch. And to answer the OQ, why ask me? You would know better than I would. And sometimes I REALLY wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 24, 2019 7:41:03 GMT
It depends on what you mean by "sound." The question is posed by people who are defining "sound" as the mental impression left by pressure waves in the air on the human mind, not just the pressure waves in the air themselves. Also with light, it might pass through space informing no one of anything or it might start a reaction in a human eye that is eventually conveyed to a human mind. Many "scientists" prefer to avoid this speculation since it evades their methods of testing. The reception is not what makes the transmission. The question refers to the nature of the reception by a sentient being, not the nature of the transmission. Using a radio analogy, yes there is a radio transmission without a radio receiver, but a radio receiver does not "hear" anything since it is not a sentient being. A sentient being "hears" the radio receiver.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2019 7:56:32 GMT
The reception is not what makes the transmission. The question refers to the nature of the reception by a sentient being, not the nature of the transmission. Using a radio analogy, yes there is a radio transmission without a radio receiver, but a radio receiver does not "hear" anything since it is not a sentient being. A sentient being "hears" the radio receiver. A sentient being hears the sound.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 24, 2019 8:29:46 GMT
The question refers to the nature of the reception by a sentient being, not the nature of the transmission. Using a radio analogy, yes there is a radio transmission without a radio receiver, but a radio receiver does not "hear" anything since it is not a sentient being. A sentient being "hears" the radio receiver. A sentient being hears the sound. Does a radio transmission of a tape recorded sound in a forest without sentient beings present make a sound? Obviously not. Neither humans nor any other sentient being can hear electromagnetic waves. The transmission only makes a "sound" when a radio receiver converts electromagnetic waves to air pressure waves. Some people insist there is yet another step in the process. Somewhat like electromagnetic waves must be converted to air pressure waves, the air pressure waves must be converted to sentient being "mind stuff" that is somehow different from the electric signals on the nerves. You are of course free to dispute that step since it is not possible with current electromagnetic technology to read minds.
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Jun 24, 2019 12:57:33 GMT
like...can you see me now? this thread I mean... some days it's hard to tell... Unfortunately; yes.
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Jun 24, 2019 12:59:10 GMT
What is the source of that illusion? The illusory universe. I should clarify, I don't actually believe that those are illusions, but I do think it's impossible to truly tell one way or the other, and therefore they aren't scientific concepts. I'm fine with applying Occam's razor and making the assumption that they're real. Or for simplicity accepting that they're real by definition. have you been reading Descartes or something!?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 24, 2019 14:43:20 GMT
The illusory universe. I should clarify, I don't actually believe that those are illusions, but I do think it's impossible to truly tell one way or the other, and therefore they aren't scientific concepts. I'm fine with applying Occam's razor and making the assumption that they're real. Or for simplicity accepting that they're real by definition. have you been reading Descartes or something!?
No. I wouldn't expect what I've said and what I understand Descartes to have written about to have much in common. Am I mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Jun 24, 2019 15:20:25 GMT
have you been reading Descartes or something!?
No. I wouldn't expect what I've said and what I understand Descartes to have written about to have much in common. Am I mistaken? Very probably.
Was I thinking of Nietzsche then!?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 24, 2019 15:30:14 GMT
No. I wouldn't expect what I've said and what I understand Descartes to have written about to have much in common. Am I mistaken? Very probably.
Was I thinking of Nietzsche then!?
I wouldn't know, I haven't read him either. All I know is that he was wrong if he made the remark "that which doesn't kill you will make you stronger".
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2019 7:17:23 GMT
A sentient being hears the sound. Does a radio transmission of a tape recorded sound in a forest without sentient beings present make a sound? Obviously not. Neither humans nor any other sentient being can hear electromagnetic waves. The transmission only makes a "sound" when a radio receiver converts electromagnetic waves to air pressure waves. Some people insist there is yet another step in the process. Somewhat like electromagnetic waves must be converted to air pressure waves, the air pressure waves must be converted to sentient being "mind stuff" that is somehow different from the electric signals on the nerves. You are of course free to dispute that step since it is not possible with current electromagnetic technology to read minds. Hearing something does not make the sound. The sound is already there regardless of whether or not you hear it. It if wasn't, there would be nothing to hear even if you were standing right next to the tree.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 25, 2019 23:11:17 GMT
Does a radio transmission of a tape recorded sound in a forest without sentient beings present make a sound? Obviously not. Neither humans nor any other sentient being can hear electromagnetic waves. The transmission only makes a "sound" when a radio receiver converts electromagnetic waves to air pressure waves. Some people insist there is yet another step in the process. Somewhat like electromagnetic waves must be converted to air pressure waves, the air pressure waves must be converted to sentient being "mind stuff" that is somehow different from the electric signals on the nerves. You are of course free to dispute that step since it is not possible with current electromagnetic technology to read minds. Hearing something does not make the sound. The sound is already there regardless of whether or not you hear it. It if wasn't, there would be nothing to hear even if you were standing right next to the tree. You seem to be dodging the issue. We agree that if a tree falls in the forest it disturbs the air with pressure waves the same whether anyone is there to hear the air pressure ("sound") waves or not. Where we appear to disagree is that I believe "hearing a sound" involves making an impression on the mind of a sentient being beyond the mere translation to electric signals in the nervous system. This is difficult to verify since there is no way to read minds with scientific technology. Actually the fact that minds cannot be read suggests there is a transduction of not only from air pressure waves to electric nerve signals, but yet another transduction to mind media. If no sentient being is there then two stages of transduction will not happen.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2019 23:23:31 GMT
Hearing something does not make the sound. The sound is already there regardless of whether or not you hear it. It if wasn't, there would be nothing to hear even if you were standing right next to the tree. You seem to be dodging the issue. We agree that if a tree falls in the forest it disturbs the air with pressure waves the same whether anyone is there to hear the air pressure ("sound") waves or not. Where we appear to disagree is that I believe "hearing a sound" involves making an impression on the mind of a sentient being beyond the mere translation to electric signals in the nervous system. This is difficult to verify since there is no way to read minds with scientific technology. Actually the fact that minds cannot be read suggests there is a transduction of not only from air pressure waves to electric nerve signals, but yet another transduction to mind media. If no sentient being is there then two stages of transduction will not happen. If answering the question is dodging the issue, then color me guilty. "We agree that if a tree falls in the forest it disturbs the air with pressure waves the same whether anyone is there to hear the air pressure ("sound") waves or not." Then we agree that the tree does indeed make a sound whether or not anyone is there to hear it. The "two stages" are transmission and reception. The former does not depend on the latter any more than a bullet needs to hit a target to be fired. You may as well say that if you close your eyes, there is no light. Maybe the deeper issue here is pride. How arrogant does one have to be to believe that if one can't see or hear something, it must be because there's nothing to be seen or heard?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 26, 2019 0:07:30 GMT
If answering the question is dodging the issue, then color me guilty. "We agree that if a tree falls in the forest it disturbs the air with pressure waves the same whether anyone is there to hear the air pressure ("sound") waves or not." Then we agree that the tree does indeed make a sound whether or not anyone is there to hear it. The "two stages" are transmission and reception. The former does not depend on the latter any more than a bullet needs to hit a target to be fired. You may as well say that if you close your eyes, there is no light. Maybe the deeper issue here is pride. How arrogant does one have to be to believe that if one can't see or hear something, it must be because there's nothing to be seen or heard?But how arrogant does one have to be assume that if one is not witnessing something, that it is there to be seen and heard? Ask if one is walking in the forest and comes across a fallen tree, taking sound out of the equation, ask yourself did the tree really fall if no-one was around to witness it topple? This is the illusion or even delusion of what the mind thinks or makes out to be real, when it can only really be verified by the observer themselves. We have never witnessed a tree falling silently. There is no reason to believe the tree in question doesn't make a sound. The issue here is whether or not a sound (transmission) needs to be heard (reception) for it to exist, and the argument that it does relies solely on semantic flip-flopping. How does one verify an illusion?
|
|