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.

 

Objective Metaphysics

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Something I'm confused about in your worldview, is your use of “potentiality”. Assuming we aren't alone in the universe, if we could isolate the first instance of microbial life and follow it back in time to the moment it went from inanimate to animate matter, from what material was the inanimate matter made if there were no observers to unwittingly designate the material's nature? Before any observers existed there would be merely potential material, and nothing defined in nature and essence. Secondly, if no observers exist and the objects populating the universe are amorphous potential objects, what determines what they will be when the first observer arrives? How is the choice made as to what concrete entities the potentials become? Also, what constitutes “life” enough to flip the hypothetical switch of “identity” / “no identity”? What has to happen for things to become “things”? Metabolism? Organic cell walls? Mitosis? The first “eye”? The first “brain”? When does the chain reaction of existence turning from potential to concrete begin? Or has life, along with existence, always existed so that things have always had identity? We would almost have to assume such because shortly after the expansion of the early universe, base elements and gases began to form. This is much earlier than life could have begun to develop because the building blocks hadn't had time to cool and form just after the super-luminary stage. Which leads me to ask you, if existence exists without observers as mere “potential”, what precisely is “potential” made out of? I'm guessing you'll say energy. What form?

Also, if a “sufficient number of observers” (say, 50% of all observers plus one) gathered together and focused their awareness on an object, say, a stone, and pictured it as something else, say, a glass bead, could they change the identity of the stone to a glass bead simply by fooling themselves into perceiving it as such? If not, why not?

Also, are the laws of logic therefore subjective in their basis as well?




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Something I'm confused about in your worldview, is your use of “potentiality”. Assuming we aren't alone in the universe, if we could isolate the first instance of microbial life and follow it back in time to the moment it went from inanimate to animate matter, from what material was the inanimate matter made if there were no observers to unwittingly designate the material's nature? Before any observers existed there would be merely potential material, and nothing defined in nature and essence. Secondly, if no observers exist and the objects populating the universe are amorphous potential objects, what determines what they will be when the first observer arrives? How is the choice made as to what concrete entities the potentials become? Also, what constitutes “life” enough to flip the hypothetical switch of “identity” / “no identity”? What has to happen for things to become “things”? Metabolism? Organic cell walls? Mitosis? The first “eye”? The first “brain”? When does the chain reaction of existence turning from potential to concrete begin? Or has life, along with existence, always existed so that things have always had identity? We would almost have to assume such because shortly after the expansion of the early universe, base elements and gases began to form. This is much earlier than life could have begun to develop because the building blocks hadn't had time to cool and form just after the super-luminary stage. Which leads me to ask you, if existence exists without observers as mere “potential”, what precisely is “potential” made out of? I'm guessing you'll say energy. What form?


I simply cannot answer this. I honestly don't believe it is possible to know, but even if it was and we did, would it really matter?


Also, if a “sufficient number of observers” (say, 50% of all observers plus one) gathered together and focused their awareness on an object, say, a stone, and pictured it as something else, say, a glass bead, could they change the identity of the stone to a glass bead simply by fooling themselves into perceiving it as such? If not, why not?


In order to understand the answer to this question you must first understand that the so-called 'external world' doesn't matter (literally, is not composed of matter) whatsoever until it is observed. It's not that it's a 'blob of potentiality', it simply doesn't exist. So, if 50% of observers plus one could somehow delude themselves into believing that the stone was in fact a glass bead, wouldn't that make the stone a glass bead? But since objectivity does not and cannot truly exist, and what I experience as a human being depends on the concepts and ideas stored within my brain, what really is the difference between a so-called 'stone' and a so-called 'glass bead'? If my brain had no concepts about reality whatsoever, would I be able to tell the difference? I believe the answer is no, not at all. So how can we even say that reality exists as a set of distinct 'things and other things'? It must be that the universe is not a set of objects, ideas, and concepts... but a single, unified, void and devoid being.


Also, are the laws of logic therefore subjective in their basis as well?


Absolutely. I think the above explains why pretty well.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Alright. What do you KNOW then?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Philodemus
 


What is there to know? What about the single, unified nothingness is there to know?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


I am asking what you are sure of.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Philodemus
 


And I am telling you that there is nothing to be sure of, nothing but your own consciousness...



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


What validates the experiences of your consciousness? How is it you can be sure of your conscious activity?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Philodemus
 


The content of the experience is irrelevant. It is the fact that there even is an experience, instead of non-existence. Yet we foolishly assume consciousness as a mere process of the brain. It's silly, really, to just brush off that which separates existence and non-existence as a material phenomena.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Philodemus
 


The content of the experience is irrelevant.


I understand. I am asking with in the relative differences of consciousness how do you validate what your consciousness is perceiving? How do you know you aren't the vicarious dream of a higher consciousness?


It is the fact that there even is an experience, instead of non-existence.
Again how are you certain of this?


Yet we foolishly assume consciousness as a mere process of the brain. It's silly, really, to just brush off that which separates existence and non-existence as a material phenomena.


If it does not originate in "brain" where does it originate?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Also, considering that it seems to go contrary to our physical experience, how do you know that material existence doesn't exsist?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus


I understand. I am asking with in the relative differences of consciousness how do you validate what your consciousness is perceiving? How do you know you aren't the vicarious dream of a higher consciousness?


My conscious awareness cannot be a part of something 'bigger' or 'higher'. It is the only essential thing and cannot be governed or controlled.


If it does not originate in "brain" where does it originate?


It is the very fabric of existence itself, eternal, formless, and indescribable.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Also, considering that it seems to go contrary to our physical experience, how do you know that material existence doesn't exsist?


It's simple quantum physics... when a particle isn't being observed it does not exist in any definite form or location. It exists in what is called a superposition, which is just another word for non-local and non-temporal.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
Again how are you certain of this?


Sorry, missed this one.

Do you really need to ask me if I am certain of consciousness? It is obviously here, why must you question it?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Also, considering that it seems to go contrary to our physical experience, how do you know that material existence doesn't exsist?


It's simple quantum physics... when a particle isn't being observed it does not exist in any definite form or location. It exists in what is called a superposition, which is just another word for non-local and non-temporal.


I have to ask. Do you know what any of that really means?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


I'm no quantum physicist but I get the jist of the concept of superposition.
edit on 3-7-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
I am sorry if this OP is short on content. It is my hope that the conversation can go organically.

What are the implications of the following axioms?

1. Existence exists
2. To be conscious is to be conscious of something
3. A=A

Can these be considered objectively irrefutable, irreducible, and self-evident? If not, why not? If so, what does this mean for our epistemology and our theory of concepts?


1) Then does nothing exist? What is the feeling of nothing? Nothing is just a concept. Nothing has ever experienced it.
2) How would we know the difference between being in a conscious state or an unconscious one? Could we be conscious of being unconscious? Is this the feeling of nothing? How would we know and what is the act of knowing?
3) A = A only in a static universe. Never in ours.
edit on 3-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Agreed. There is only "now". Past, and future are conceptualizations.


My take-

Now is a relative concept. Now is the point where past and future meet. But what's the duration of now? What is the smallest fraction of time? Couldn't it be infinite? Past and future will never actually touch because of now.

"Now" is dictated by the information delivered through light in space and time. Your now, my now, the now on jupiter etc.. will never ever be the same. Now is only relative to the point of experience.



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Considering our logic is based on perceptual input and that is informed by our sense experiences and those are subject to the objects in existence, what senses do you use to observe a particle? Please see this blog to help clear up my take on the subject of particle physics; specifically it covers the double slit experiment.
Double Slit


Within your worldview, things are so subjective that I'm not sure how you can epistemologically build any objective ethics and morals...



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

1) Then does nothing exist? What is the feeling of nothing? Nothing is just a concept. Nothing has ever experienced it.


Nothing is a concept. So is existence. In fact, it is the broadest of concepts.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

2) How would we know the difference between being in a conscious state or an unconscious one? Could we be conscious of being unconscious? Is this the feeling of nothing? How would we know and what is the act of knowing?

Consciousness is action. You have observed my point precisley.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

3) A = A only in a static universe. Never in ours.
edit on 3-7-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


So, a thing is not a thing itself and no other thing? If you are not you, then what are you?

These are the base axioms of Objectivism. They are perceptually self-evident. They work in harmony to establish the primacy of existence (rather than the primacy of consciousness) and they are essential to form an objective worldview.

Thanks for commenting, Photon!

In Humanity,
Daniel
P.S. For a better explination of my take on them, as I know them so far, read my post on the second page of this thread. If you would like you can interact with that. Thanks again!
edit on 4-7-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Considering our logic is based on perceptual input and that is informed by our sense experiences and those are subject to the objects in existence, what senses do you use to observe a particle? Please see this blog to help clear up my take on the subject of particle physics; specifically it covers the double slit experiment.
Double Slit


I noticed that the author didn't really acknowledge the fact that the particles were aware that they were being observed. Whether it's a human or a measuring device doesn't matter at this point, because the electron still possesses the capacity to know it is being measured.


Within your worldview, things are so subjective that I'm not sure how you can epistemologically build any objective ethics and morals...


Society should be obliterated. We live in a society that focuses on the mass and not the individual. Our morals aren't sincere, we abide by them only to fit in. I personally believe that humans are naturally good at heart, and we possess the capacity for sincere compassion. Our society renders us nearly incapable that.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join