The Philosophy Thread

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,529
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Agreed to a point. That is objective reality. If a tree fall in the forest does it make a sound. My answer is of course it does.

I do recall this being discussed in one of my philosophy courses.

If it falls, it makes a "noise" since noise is the physical vibrations that propagate through a media.

It does not make a "sound", since a sound is in the consciousness of an observer, as the result of a noise entering an ear.

Now, you can substitute whatever alternative terms you wish to differentiate between the physical phenomena and what happens in a conscious mind.

But that differentiation is the true point of this question.

They are fundamentally different.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Depends, is there a bear in that forest...?

and more importantly do you have a mask on when you say something....?

This might help

https://youtu.be/FErYyPMbllI

:coffee:
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
I do recall this being discussed in one of my philosophy courses.

If it falls, it makes a "noise" since noise is the physical vibrations that propagate through a media.

It does not make a "sound", since a sound is in the consciousness of an observer, as the result of a noise entering an ear.

Now, you can substitute whatever alternative terms you wish to differentiate between the physical phenomena and what happens in a conscious mind.

But that differentiation is the true point of this question.

They are fundamentally different.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------



This might help

https://youtu.be/FErYyPMbllI

:coffee:

The true point of this question is to find out if a person believes reality is created by consciousness(primacy of consciousness) or if it is objective(primacy of existence).

How one answers this fundamental question sets the tone for everything else one understands as truth and all the consequences both positive and negative.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,529
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
The true point of this question is to find out if a person believes reality is created by consciousness(primacy of consciousness) or if it is objective(primacy of existence).

How one answers this fundamental question sets the tone for everything else one understands as truth and all the consequences both positive and negative.

I don't agree.

The issue is not primarily about the existence of physical reality, but more about the nature of consciousness and the distinction between the two.

In a sense, it is related to Decarte's axiom, which is typically misquoted.

The typical translation for Cogito, ergo sum is "I think, therefore, I am"

The better translation is "I doubt, therefore I am"

The doubt was in relation to how do I know my consciousness actually exists in a real world?

He concluded that since he was doubting that possibility, the mere fact that he doubted it "proved" he must exist since otherwise, there would be no "one" to doubt.
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
33,793
Reaction score
5,179
Points
113
Age
73
I don't agree.

The issue is not primarily about the existence of physical reality, but more about the nature of consciousness and the distinction between the two.

In a sense, it is related to Decarte's axiom, which is typically misquoted.

The typical translation for Cogito, ergo sum is "I think, therefore, I am"

The better translation is "I doubt, therefore I am"

The doubt was in relation to how do I know my consciousness actually exists in a real world?

He concluded that since he was doubting that possibility, the mere fact that he doubted it "proved" he must exist since otherwise, there would be no "one" to doubt.

As a kid, I kept saying I am therefore I think. Until my teacher told me I was putting Descarte before de horse. :shrug:
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
I don't agree.

The issue is not primarily about the existence of physical reality, but more about the nature of consciousness and the distinction between the two.

In a sense, it is related to Decarte's axiom, which is typically misquoted.

The typical translation for Cogito, ergo sum is "I think, therefore, I am"

The better translation is "I doubt, therefore I am"

The doubt was in relation to how do I know my consciousness actually exists in a real world?

He concluded that since he was doubting that possibility, the mere fact that he doubted it "proved" he must exist since otherwise, there would be no "one" to doubt.

Well, either way I think he is incorrect and this is not a philosophical axiom. In philosophy and axiom is an irreducible primary. This statement is not.

There is a world of difference and consequences on which conclusion one comes to on the Primacy of Consciousness and the Primacy of existence.

Tell me what one believes in this area and I will tell all they are capable of believe, failing at or achieving. based on that singular answer.

There are enormous real world consequences to the answer one comes to.

I am therefore I think. Those that believe this sent man incredibly to the moon and created this incredible nation. Those that believe in the primacy of consciousness on some level, have created most of the horrors man has ever known. Including burning of our cities as we are seeing now.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,529
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Well, either way I think he is incorrect and this is not a philosophical axiom.

~snip~

That's the way it was presented to me.

Here are some links that support that definition.

From Wiki

As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

a. Cogito, ergo sum
In the Second Meditation, Descartes tries to establish absolute certainty in his famous reasoning: Cogito, ergo sum or “I think, therefore I am.” These Meditations are conducted from the first person perspective, from Descartes.’ However, he expects his reader to meditate along with him to see how his conclusions were reached. This is especially important in the Second Meditation where the intuitively grasped truth of “I exist” occurs. So the discussion here of this truth will take place from the first person or “I” perspective. All sensory beliefs had been found doubtful in the previous meditation, and therefore all such beliefs are now considered false. This includes the belief that I have a body endowed with sense organs. But does the supposed falsehood of this belief mean that I do not exist? No, for if I convinced myself that my beliefs are false, then surely there must be an “I” that was convinced. Moreover, even if I am being deceived by an evil demon, I must exist in order to be deceived at all. So “I must finally conclude that the proposition, ‘I am,’ ‘I exist,’ is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind” (AT VII 25: CSM II 16-17). This just means that the mere fact that I am thinking, regardless of whether or not what I am thinking is true or false, implies that there must be something engaged in that activity, namely an “I.” Hence, “I exist” is an indubitable and, therefore, absolutely certain belief that serves as an axiom from which other, absolutely certain truths can be deduced.

Simply Philosophy

Site won't let me copy text, but snip images are below.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,529
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
There is a world of difference and consequences on which conclusion one comes to on the Primacy of Consciousness and the Primacy of existence.

I was not trying to say anything about if existence or consciousness has "primacy".

IMHO, the idea is meaningless.

It's akin to arguing if BB or TFB+ had "primacy" for the success of the Patriots over the past two decades.

Both were important, in different ways.

Another example is Quantum Mechanics.

QM is perhaps the most successful theory of all time, in the sense of it's ability to make predictions,

Making predictions being the sine qua non of a successful theory.

Yet just what it actually says about "existence" isn't entirely clear.

The Copenhagen interpretation favored by Niels Bohr involves the idea of things being "probability waves" until an observation is made when the "waveform collapses" and one has a single outcome.

This is the basis for Schrodinger's Cat being both alive and dead until you open the box.

It also gives rise to the classically impossible electron beam double slit experiment.

Where if you fire one electron at a time towards a barrier with two slits, you will eventually get an interference pattern form over time the same way one gets with light.



Here's one for light.



The classical explanation for the light results is that light is a wave and you get a typical wave front reinforcement or cancellation.

But in the electron beam experiment, they fire a single electron at a time, so it is clearly a particle.

To make matters weirder, if one assumes the electron must pass though one lit or the other, and puts a detector there to note it's passing, the interference pattern is destroyed.

So clearly existence is behaving in a way that seems completely incompatible with the way our "normal" consciousness would view things.

Yet that same consciousness came up with QM, which perfectly predicts the outcome in these experiments.

So which has "primacy"?

IMHO, that question is a non sequitur.
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
A lot of people wonder if or outright think intricate philosophical discussion is just completely worthless time and words.

But it's not.

In this context especially it is essential for building an airtight, irrefutable argument for liberty and a system of pure, moral and unfettered laissez faire capitalism as a social system that allows mankind to use his most unique gift, his reasoning mind to not only survive but to flourish to best of his abilities so long as he harms no one.

Ideas move the world and for the better part of human history we have been dominated by one misanthropic creed after another creating mass amounts of suffering and misery.

In between there were a few periods of human greatness when reason was held high over mysticism.

The beauty that is the founding principles of the United States were was born of of just such a time.

THe time to return is NOW!!!
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
IRON LAW #8: those who refuse to state their argument in clear and concise terms are making a confession.
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Listening to Atlas Shrugged audiobook again and just heard a line early in the book. Dagny mentions hearing in science class about the fact that the Sun someday would lose energy and and grow cold. That the world would end and the last days of that world might be like what they saw there. Hank tells her that he never worried about that because "By the time the Sun was exhausted men would find a substitute" This reminds me of the optimism and positivity that exists in Objectivism. A human race unfettered by social constructs we place on it now would be free and able to accomplish awesome things. It is a powerful positive message in a time of negativity.

This is is, in part, the Benevolent Universe Premise. The cosmic deck is not stacked against us.
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
When has the human race ever existed without social construct?

The social constructs here are negative in nature. I fully believe that if man is left free to go about his business so long as he violates no one else's right to do the same he will will flourish.
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
When has the human race ever existed without social construct?

I love this and was in such evidence in the indomitable spirit of the Soviet born Ayn Rand. Even the Soviets couldn't destroy her spirit.

It's all a matter of perspective and how we stand before life, nature and reality.
 

Beaglebay

Houndsight is 20/20
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
26,295
Reaction score
9,614
Points
113
Location
Eastham, MA
Website
www.tanjantstudios.com
I love this and was in such evidence in the indomitable spirit of the Soviet born Ayn Rand. Even the Soviets couldn't destroy her spirit.

It's all a matter of perspective and how we stand before life, nature and reality.
I believe humans are born instilled with hope. To varying degrees, we all ask, "Why does this (whatever this is at the moment) happen, and how can I (or what can be done to) make it better?" We are inherently problem-solvers, and continually fail and try again, until we find solutions. This is the main foundation for all human endeavor.
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
What a load of misanthropic anti-life crap from the father of the modern destruction of the human mind.

"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made,” said Immanuel Kant in his essay, “Idea for a General History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose” (1784).
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
The task of evaluating the processes of man’s subconscious is the province of psychology. Psychology does not regard its subject morally, but medically — i.e., from the aspect of health or malfunction (with cognitive competence as the proper standard of health)......

As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps. It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gathering material from which a future science will come. This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle, to organize its material, systematize its problems and define its fundamental principles.


Ayn Rand, March 1971

5f0e20e8206238b65d3d9ccb_atlas%2520shrugged%2520statue_0[1].jpeg
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
This is a very good survey of 2500 years of bad philosophy and the effects those ideas had on human history in about an hour.

Synopsis:

In this video we begin the examination of why over the past 2500 years, human beings have suffered for most eras through genocide, poverty, disease, and misery (causes which include: Christian Dark Ages and Inquisition, jihad/terrorism, wars, Nazi concentration camps, communist gulags, monarchies and dictators, and so on).

View: https://youtu.be/TyVkCej76KE
 
Top