It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The World You Perceive Does Not Exist

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: PhotonEffect

You have chosen to define sound as 'the percept of pressure waves in a medium'. Fine.

However, the waves exist whether the percept is present or not. External reality is independent of the observer.

I suppose some idiot is now going to come up with his misinterpretation of the Uncertainty Priniciple, or some ill-digested babble about 'quantum physics'.



Do you perceive waves or sound? Sure, say waves exist independent of you. Sound doesn't. You perceive sound, not waves. Thus the world you PERCEIVE is dependent on you.




posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Well, yes, because that's what sound is. It's not just the wave, but also the perception of that wave.

Without an ear, or in the case of your example - a microphone- or any other sensory apparatus to intercept the wave and convert it into the percept of sound, the wave will just pass thru the medium undetected. Making no "sound."

Its like seeing the color red. Same idea, just a different type of wave and sensory apparatus.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

No, the room does not "observe" (perceive) in the same sense that a living thing does.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


You have chosen to define sound as 'the percept of pressure waves in a medium'.

Is the medium that which the waves move? Waves are moving in a medium.
Without the medium for the wave to move within; can a wave wave?

External reality is independent of the observer.

The observer is the medium in which (on which/as which) the appearance (sound, light, sensation) appears.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: _damon
a reply to: _damon

Oh and there is an easy way to dismiss the stupid arrogant theory that pretends our conscious creates the world. If that was the case then the world should logically end when you die. But does the world end when one relative die? No it continues as if nothing. Common sense is good.

You say that the world should logically end when 'you' die and then you expect it to end when a 'relative' dies? That is not logical.

Did you ever witness the coming or going of yourself? Have you ever known a time when you weren't?
You are forever seeing things come and go. You see that a baby is born (it appears from nowhere), it grows (the baby disappears and is an adult), the adult dies and is burned or buried, it disappeared back to nothing. The sun appears in the sky and disappears from sight at night.
You are just the screen on which the appearance changes/moves.
Can you be sure that the screen ever really changes? The screen may be constantly appearing different but does the screen ever change?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Serdgiam

No, the room does not "observe" (perceive) in the same sense that a living thing does.



Of course its not in the 'same' sense. That statement also insinuates that the presence of a human is directly equatable across the board, but that is not the case either. You don't perceive things in the same way I do (this is actually something quite incredible). But the process is the same for all frames of reference; waves propagating through different mediums. 'Observer' is not quite used the same way in science as it is understood in general English lexicon, much like 'theory.' The grammar can also differ, and I think these two factors are frequently overlooked.

The only way the sound wouldn't exist without perception is if human/animal perception changes mass from complete rigidity into relativism only when it is observed. The evidence suggests otherwise, though things start to change around the molecular level. Perhaps a better foundation for an argument would be that a single sensory organ existing removes rigidity. This would, of course, be extremely difficult to verify.

While the addition of brain waves changes the equation between several frames of reference, the overall exchange was predicted by more encompassing thermodynamic understandings.
edit on 6-10-2014 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney


Do you perceive waves or sound?

You perceive waves. You perceive them as sound.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

No it aint logical and i didnt pretend it ever was.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney


Do you perceive waves or sound?

You perceive waves. You perceive them as sound.


Your brain INTERPRETS waves as sound...you PERCEIVE sound...



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Make up your mind. This is the same error you fell into earlier.

What is sound?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TheJourney

Make up your mind. This is the same error you fell into earlier.

What is sound?


No, you're seemingly intentionally ignoring the point. SOUND is a product of ears and mind. Perhaps the WAVES exist independently, but sound does not. The only reason you say sound is waves is because you've read about that. If that wasn't a scientific fact, you wouldn't call sound waves, because you don't directly perceive waves...you perceive sound...because of your ears and mind.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I can only be in awe when I stop and wonder at existence and become aware everything I experience is brought about by the brain, chemicals, currents and atoms. Even though it's perfectly logical and taken for granted, how is it possible a bunch of atoms produces a self which can feel, hear, see and smell scents? I just don't know and perhaps I'll never feel like I do. Then I have to move on or I'll go nuts.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

A tree does make sound waves when it falls.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Yes, ur mind determines the 'sound' of the waves, but, whether we are here or not does not stop the creation of these waves.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Yes I understand the first part of your post-
Generally, an 'observer', in quantum mechanics, is that which measures the observable. The room in that music box example plays no such role. But the microphone does. Which is why I posed the question of what happens to the "sound" if there is no microphone there to pick up the waves.

I'm not sure I follow with the rest of your post, to be honest.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
I can only be in awe when I stop and wonder at existence and become aware everything I experience is brought about by the brain, chemicals, currents and atoms. Even though it's perfectly logical and taken for granted, how is it possible a bunch of atoms produces a self which can feel, hear, see and smell scents? I just don't know and perhaps I'll never feel like I do. Then I have to move on or I'll go nuts.

Ditto bro. What is half of an electron? And what is half of a half of an electron? So goes the story... :''(



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

It is not a puzzle. That is what makes us human.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Generally, an 'observer', in quantum mechanics, is that which measures the observable. The room in that music box example plays no such role. But the microphone does. Which is why I posed the question of what happens to the "sound" if there is no microphone there to pick up the waves.


When speaking about an observer, the scale is critical. With sound, we are dealing with special relativity. At a very small scale, relative to us, is where some seemingly strange behavior begins to take place (quantum).

So, the tree starts to fall in the woods with no one to hear it, and without any microphone. All of the energetic exchanges occur exactly like we think they would. None of these are witnessed with ears, eyes, or anything like that. There would be no direct human perception of the event, but the event itself would displace the same amount of energy through the same functions. We understand these functions as sound, gravity, tensile strength, etc. Sensory organs were developed over time to perceive these events that have been happening all along.


I'm not sure I follow with the rest of your post, to be honest.


I can only see two options for the lack of energetic exchange without a human observer. The first is that the environment ceases to exist when not being observed. However, then there would not be a tree to fall in the first place. The second is that all objects turn perfectly rigid when not being observed by a human, thereby inhibiting the propagation of any waves like sound.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
If you are blind and deaf and a tree falls and lands on you, it'll still kill you. Our visual perception is unique, but what exists exists.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Again: there is no sound, colors, textures, or anything we perceive as reality in reality itself. Ok, there are waves. But unless out ears and brains are there to INTERPRET waves as sound, there is no sound...only waves...which are wholly different than your perceptions...you can say 'the same waves exist whether we perceive them or not,' but every quality your brain gives these waves, are not inherent properties of the waves...it is a unique product of waves interacting with sensory organs and minds...
edit on 6-10-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join