Article: the evolutionary argument against reality

[Ufostrahlen]

When I look at the moon and you look at the moon, we see the same thing. The moon is not a creation of the mind. It is in fact observer-independent.

Haven't read the article, but I tend to disagree. We do not see the _same_ thing, since our eyes are not clones, but individual grown receptors. We see the same concept, because our eyes and language are similar, therefore we imagine to see the same object.

Has a deep sea kraken (metaphor for deep sea creature living in darkness) a conception of the moon? No, because it lacks the receptors. It sees a dim light at night at the max. What if we were all deep sea kraken? Would the moon exist? No, it wouldn't because we have no concept of it. The only crazy kraken that dreamt of the moon and perceives it with human senses is either getting ridiculed or gets medically treated.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

When I look at the moon and you look at the moon, we see the same thing. The moon is not a creation of the mind. It is in fact observer-independent.

Prove it.

Blessings
~ND

 

[inaniel]

[I'm rediscovering this article again]I'm not a neuroscientist, so I'm just stepping out on a limb here, but I would guess that neuroscientists stick to classical physics principles because they explain the observations well. Just like most practical fields of study today (fluid dynamics, geology, meteorology, continuous mechanics, and ecology, to name a few), quantum mechanics is not necessary.

it may explain it well, but that doesn't mean there's not much to still learn. I find it kind of strange that bringing up quantum mechanics to some is almost like bringing up evolution or dinosaurs to a fundamentalist christian, they usually ignore it and say something like "well god taught me everything i need to know, no need to look at other evidence." i mean, people had evidence that the earth was the center of the universe for quite a while, the models made sense to them but it doesn't mean the models were correct and all encompassing.

consciousness is still a great mystery which to my knowledge has not been explained by current models, and may never be solved, but i think taking all aspects of knowledge into consideration wouldn't hurt the pursuit of truth. I, too, believe there is something more to reality as seen through personal use with DMT and mushrooms, and though this doesn't mean much in terms of scientific knowledge, it does open the doors for wider needs of explanations, answers, etc.

 

[hixidom]

Haven't read the article, but I tend to disagree. We do not see the _same_ thing, since our eyes are not clones

Oh. See, I thought I was talking to another homo sapien with human eyes. Come on dude: Our genetics are 99.5% similar. As far as I'm concerned, that means I'm right with a margin of error of 0.05%. You are not a Kraken. That we are all humans was a key assumption of my argument. Obviously if you were a bird or a rock, it would not be quite as true.

consciousness is still a great mystery which to my knowledge has not been explained by current models

The stock market is also hard to explain with current models. That doesn't mean it's a quantum system. Both the brain and the world markets may both just be very complex classical systems.

Prove it.

We have enough evidence from the standpoint of both physicists and neurologists. Of course we can debate metaphysics, but the article in the OP was written by a physical scientist, not a philosopher. In the context of his article, the physical nature of the moon has been sufficiently proven.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Haven't read the article, but I tend to disagree. We do not see the _same_ thing, since our eyes are not clones

Oh. See, I thought I was talking to another homo sapien with human eyes. Come on dude: Our genetics are 99.5% similar. As far as I'm concerned, that means I'm right with a margin of error of 0.05%. You are not a Kraken. That we are all humans was a key assumption of my argument. Obviously if you were a bird or a rock, it would not be quite as true.

Alright, could be a good chance that I'm a homo sapiens. Let's assume that. But then it depends whether I can see or not. Maybe I'm blind and I dictate the text to my caretaker. Do we then see the same? No. The concept of the moon to a blind man is different from a seeing man.

Another idea: let's say we clone two kids. But one kid gets altered genes where the receptor in the eyes are more prone to IR light. Both kids look at the sky. Do they see the same? No. Also take locality into account. Weather and latitude will make a difference in the measurement.

Futhermore, let's imagine an alien probe orbiting earth, depending on the time the measurement takes place, the data isn't 100% overlapping.

Spoiler

The _concept_ earth exists in both measurements, but the data has changed. Also take the decay of the sensor into account. Some atoms may evaporate off and you never get the same measurement with a different sensor. Maybe in some thousand years homo sapiens blasts the earth into pieces and travels to a distant planet. The alien probe still hasn't moved by 0.0000001% but the measurement is totally different.

The measurement is therefore always subject to the sensor and the measured object. The to be measured object changes during measurement and the sensor does too. You don't need QM theories for that insight, just take two cheap voltage meter of the same built and a battery.

 

[inaniel]

The stock market is also hard to explain with current models. That doesn't mean it's a quantum system. Both the brain and the world markets may both just be very complex classical systems.

i don't know much about the stock market, i mean it seems like you invest money into something and either a) profit on that investment or b) your initial profit decreases in value. i'm certain there are experts out there able to explain it properly. there's likely an entire section at the book store dedicated to this. How many can explain consciousness?

 

[Psybin]

The stock market is also hard to explain with current models. That doesn't mean it's a quantum system. Both the brain and the world markets may both just be very complex classical systems.

i don't know much about the stock market, i mean it seems like you invest money into something and either a) profit on that investment or b) your initial profit decreases in value. i'm certain there are experts out there able to explain it properly. there's likely an entire section at the book store dedicated to this. How many can explain consciousness?

Actually, as a system, the economy itself is not explainable by any one person or theory. It's really very complex, but complexity is merely defined as being comprised of many identical or similar parts, each operating on the same few basic principals (ie. it is composed of people who, though different, operate on largely the same principals, like "buy low, sell high" or "hold onto a stock as long as possible" or even just on the principal of trying to profit). Despite this, it's devilishly hard to understand how and why the economy functions how it does once you get to the scale of the US economy or even the world economy. There are so many variables, so many people and transactions and motives and it goes on...

Many people have many theories, but the economy doesn't seem to pay them much mind.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

Prove it.

We have enough evidence from the standpoint of both physicists and neurologists. Of course we can debate metaphysics, but the article in the OP was written by a physical scientist, not a philosopher. In the context of his article, the physical nature of the moon has been sufficiently proven.

It's a question of certainty. You're using the tools of physics and neuroscience to tell you how physics and neuroscience works. If you're willing to accept a certain degree of uncertainty, that's fine. Unfortunately, if the question is 'does reality exist or not y/n', you don't have a lot of room for flexibility since it's a binary solution.

Blessings
~ND

 

[zapped17]

When I look at the moon and you look at the moon, we see the same thing. The moon is not a creation of the mind. It is in fact observer-independent.

This is the age old question of "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" Leaving aside quantum physics, this question has been recently re-examined in philosophy of the mind under the topic of "mental representation", and there is a sense under this very popular conception of mind in which it is at least both (this is w/o quantum physics considered, which might sway the pendulum further toward the mental side). The paper I'll attach by Joseph Levine (pages 13-20) really clarified the confusion I - and I think many people might have - had for a while surrounding this question. Perhaps some might find it interesting?

Also - and forgive me if this has already been mentioned - there have recently been a series of experiments in quantum physics which have violated the "Leggett-Garg Inequality", which is an experiment to rule out macroscopic realism. So if these experiments are taken to be true - I guess history will tell - then reality is indeed would seem to be relative to the "observer". I'm sure everyone already knows that local realism has been ruled out (indeed with a recent loophole free experimental replication as well) via quantum entanglement.

 

[monomind]

Even if we agree that such a thing as the "moon" exists in an observer independent fashion ( which is indeed the main premise of current science )
... that it is made of such and such atoms, in such and such space/time coordinates ( which btw, are all human made definitions ) it is still, IMO, does not imply anything
on how "reality" is ( or existence in general ). Our ancestors, running naked in the savannah had similar sensory input to us ( given our biology did not change that much in the last 10,000 years) when they looked up to the night sky and saw the thing we call "moon"... had a completely different concept of it than us... they might have seen a god, or an omen etc.
What is the basis then to the claim that it was/is the "same" thing ? obviously it is very natural for us humans to think that the moon is the moon and that's all to it ( our life are much simpler without ambiguity... ). The point is, that what there is in reality and what we see/believe are categorically not one and the same ( as a wise someone once said: "the hand that points to the moon is not the moon, or a better one: "The map is not the territory" ). Our sensory range is such that it ensures our survival first and foremost, rather than represents something in reality. The visible light spectrum or our auditory spectrum etc. are exactly such that they are useful to us. Nothing less , nothing more.
And "what is useful" is not "what there is".
Its worthwhile noting also that the structure of our ( human) perception is mostly such that it supports ( in a useful fashion :twisted: ) the existence of the universe in which we believe we are... and physicality is the least of it as this touches also on our social behaviour, moral values, and general beliefs about how the world is and how we are in it.

p.s.

zapped17, thanks for the references and the article, looks interesting.

 

[pau]

people have been arguing this back and forth for a few thousand years, but Bobby seems to have finally figured it out:

 

[DoingKermit]

I am still trying to get my head around the details of the Anthropic Principle, but my understanding of it is that we need to keep into account that we are an integral part to the universe as observers. The universe needs us as much as we need it, as we bring it into existence through the act of observation.

A logical argument against this notion would be - if we are so important as observers, then how would the universe have existed before we came into being? Well the Participatory Anthropic Principle states that since we can observe the photons that reach us from when the big bang occurred, we are essentially bringing it into existence. Its a self consistent loop. We are here as part of the action and not just along for the ride.

My problem with this is that it is centred around humans and our intelligent understandings of the universe. So basically, if we never came into existence, neither would anything we see around us. If we never evolved onto land and were intelligent underwater creatures, according to this principle, the universe wouldn’t exist.

 

[hixidom]

My problem with this is that it is centred around humans and our intelligent understandings of the universe. So basically, if we never came into existence, neither would anything we see around us. If we never evolved onto land and were intelligent underwater creatures, according to this principle, the universe wouldn’t exist.

I think that's a misunderstanding. The anthropic principle states that the universe happens to sustain life, and it seems like a huge coincidence, but only because we wouldn't exist if that coincidence hadn't come about. i.e. the fact that conscious beings inquire about the properties of the universe is proof that the properties of the universe are just right to allow conscious life to exist...If they weren't, then we wouldn't be here to inquire about them. Anthropic principle is indeed a messy topic.

 

[fathomlessness]

[I'm rediscovering this article again]

Here's where the author gets it all wrong:

if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers.

...meanwhile, straight from wikipedia:

The physicist's Realism is the claim that the world is in some sense mind-independent: that even if the results of a possible measurement do not pre-exist the act of measurement, that does not require that they are the creation of the observer

The author of the neuroscience article says that physical objects are not "observer-independent". I agree with this (observation always affects a physical system), but that does not mean that they are observer-dependent! i.e. If two scientists take the same measurement, they should get the same [observation-biased] result. When I look at the moon and you look at the moon, we see the same thing. The moon is not a creation of the mind. It is in fact observer-independent.

I'm not a neuroscientist, so I'm just stepping out on a limb here, but I would guess that neuroscientists stick to classical physics principles because they explain the observations well. Just like most practical fields of study today (fluid dynamics, geology, meteorology, continuous mechanics, and ecology, to name a few), quantum mechanics is not necessary.

Good point