• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The case against reality

Migrated topic.
The headline is stupid clickbait. He doesn't argue against reality, but rather our perception of it.

This sounds like confirmation of Aldous Huxley' s opinion of mind as "reducing valve". I think most of you are familiar with it.
 
This is great, thanks for sharing.

Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.
Click to expand...

Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects—including brains—don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of.
Click to expand...

The experiences of everyday life—my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate—that really is the ultimate nature of reality.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have ever heard someone intergrate observer effect in to a theory of mind.

It makes me wonder, if there is no external reality... then where are these "conscious experiences" being created or experienced subjectively?

uhhhmmm, maybe this?

matrix-pods.jpg
 
oversoul1919 said:
The headline is stupid clickbait. He doesn't argue against reality, but rather our perception of it.

This sounds like confirmation of Aldous Huxley' s opinion of mind as "reducing valve". I think most of you are familiar with it.
Click to expand...

I think he is doing both. He is arguing against an objective reality which most are still working under its title unassumingl. he does this with reference to quantum mechanics and how neuroscience and other fields are still operating via classical physics even though it is not compatible with what we know about the nature of reality. He also is arguing against our perceptions giving us a true sense of an objective world.
 
Back
Top Bottom