Idealism Vs Realism - Page 7

Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum





let's start with the tree question I would say there's no tree if there's no one around to perceive it. What might be there could be a blob of energy... but tree in it's form and sounds is something that is intertwined with perception.

Is energy real or is energy perceived?


einstein's relativity talks of spacetime continuity, and the inseparability of it. If you think of it in terms of space and time, then it's an illusion. If you think of it as a continuum then it might not be.

to my mind, digital existence/ separability/ distinct objects are all problematical... same goes for energy blobs. We perceive each other as distinct bodies perhaps because of how our system works. With a different nervous system, perhaps we'd see one blob blobbing into another in a continuum...  ðŸ˜Š

it's not a "continuum" if it has black holes; space-time loses it's meaning in a black hole. also, we don't know if it is a continuum (macro scale) or if it is discrete (quantum scale).




Edited by K.Universe. - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
I think energy (actually it's manifestation) is something we perceive... as real as our experiences and thoughts, and physically real only in terms of nomenclature we assign to it. We can't know what it really is, never can. We can never know what it is like to be energy. It might very well just be a fudge factor filling in our gaps in understanding, for all we know...
Also black holes might be 'extremely' dense but they are not infinitely so, at least not infinite as infinities go. In the limit as we approach a black hole, gravity would become larger and larger but there possibly could be no discrete boundary... That would mean boundaries/ edges within our universe. That in turn would mean the existence of possibly infinitely dense nuclei within our universe each of which could big-bang into a universe... we'd then have to hyothesize possibility of universes 'within' universes.
 
In fact i think very few things other than those defined through nomenclature (eg. pass/ fail, win/ lose) are discrete... even life n death. its a process, continuous at that... though we might perceive it as discrete.. Where life ebbs away, we dont know. We seem to be able to keep pushing the reversibility timelines. It is hard to imagine discrete in reality, though it abounds in our world of perceptions. We study atoms and learn discrete structures.. but what about the glue that likely binds the particles together in an analog way..
Edited by BirdieNumNum - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago

I'm not sure I have the full understanding of idealism and realism. However, the ongoing discussion somewhat made me think of The Matrix. In Matrix all reality is an illusion. We are comatose beings hooked onto brain simulators that create our experiences and what we perceive to be the real world. So there is reality that the mind perceives, or is made to perceive (Idealism?). Then there is reality, the truth, where we are comatose (Realism?)

 

There is a scene though where the character Cypher is eating a steak. He knows the steak is not real. He knows the Matrix is telling his mind that it is juicy and delicious. But the most important thing he has realized is that ignorance is bliss. If it looks like a steak, smells like a steak, tastes like a steak, it is a steak. Damn whatever true reality is. Perception is reality.

Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum



 
In fact i think very few things other than those defined through nomenclature (eg. pass/ fail, win/ lose) are discrete... even life n death. its a process, continuous at that... though we might perceive it as discrete.. Where life ebbs away, we dont know. We seem to be able to keep pushing the reversibility timelines. It is hard to imagine discrete in reality, though it abounds in our world of perceptions. We study atoms and learn discrete structures.. but what about the glue that likely binds the particles together in an analog way..



The smallest unit on the quantum scale is the Planck scale. Real world geometry folds at the Planck scale. To posit anything else would be to bend known rules, which means, for the time being, at the smallest scale, space isn't greater than 1 Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 meters) and time isn't greater than 1 Planck time (5.4 x 10-44 seconds)

It is true that instead of talking about distances and times, we should be talking about events, as they are the only things that are of interest in space-time. The distance between events is the space-time interval. This is invariant for all observers. So, if you go by the theory of relativity, what exists are laws and relations, not some "concrete reality" with "substances". So where does perception fit in, in relativity, is what I would like to find out.


Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by return_to_hades




There is a scene though where the character Cypher is eating a steak. He knows the steak is not real. He knows the Matrix is telling his mind that it is juicy and delicious. But the most important thing he has realized is that ignorance is bliss. If it looks like a steak, smells like a steak, tastes like a steak, it is a steak. Damn whatever true reality is. Perception is reality.



Agreed. it doesn't matter whether "this" is the reality or "that" is the reality.

But, by the same token, nothing matters. It doesn't matter if humans live or humans die. It doesn't matter if earth exists or earth doesn't exist. It doesn't matter if all of the universe is swallowed by a black-hole or ripped apart by dark energy or collapses on itself due to gravity. It doesn't matter if there is a God or if there is a devil or if there is nothing.

But is the above "perception" shared by all? If not, then the question is, why do we have (>=1) perception(s)?
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.





The senses evolved to receive environmental stimuli and respond to them.

Of course, the senses are not of much use without a nervous system so I guess they "co-evolved".

Regardless, it is safe to assume that the environment was there first and senses/nervous system came later?
 
Originally posted by -Aarya-


 
Haha! If you ask me sitting on the fence has the best view of either side...
possible :)

Can there be any perception when there is nothing to perceive?
It all depends what you consider as perception, something you see, hear, feel, experience, etc then the answer is yes else the answer will always be no.  But the tree does exist, it makes sound, it moves, so it does exist regardless you perceive or not.

How does one conceptualise anything without having any prior experience to build upon?
Doesn't it derive from your surrounding? So if you were to leave a new born child in forest without any connection to the real world (society, people, etc), how would the child grown up, where would he learn from , what's right vs wrong...etc

 

The brain's various centres are each designated for a specific function. The senses take cognition of the environment. The anthropological basis of the nervous system was to facilitate an interaction with the environment, based on the individual's awareness of being separate from the environment. All senses subserve the function of underlining a sense of discreteness. Touch, taste, sound, smell and vision are instruments of discrimination. The entity that integrates these inputs and collectively coordinates them as a subject is the assumed 'identity'. The coordinated output of separateness that the senses keep generating is ego.

The brain also provides a data bank that stores previous interactions with the environment. These are categorised and stored for reference in the bandwidths of likes and dislikes. The brain helps fragment awareness into the subjective 'self' and objective 'non-self' - the observed world. This split awareness is switched on continuously and both the 'self' and the 'non-self' are vital for each other's symbiotic existence. Ie both perceiver and perceived are vital for perception.

Our own identity relies on our ability to perceive our self as uniquely different and distanced from the environment

Question 1- if identity was based merely on a deep-rooted sense of discreteness that the senses generate, would a person, alone in a dark, quiet room - whose brain is not being fed with sensory inputs - consider himself as non-existent?

Question2- Without any sensory inputs  can there be any data bank to draw ideas from?

Question 3- How would the "intelligent designer"  be able to design intelligently without any databank to fall back on?

Edited by _Angie_ - 9 years ago
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by K.Universe.




The smallest unit on the quantum scale is the Planck scale. Real world geometry folds at the Planck scale. To posit anything else would be to bend known rules, which means, for the time being, at the smallest scale, space isn't greater than 1 Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 meters) and time isn't greater than 1 Planck time (5.4 x 10-44 seconds)

It is true that instead of talking about distances and times, we should be talking about events, as they are the only things that are of interest in space-time. The distance between events is the space-time interval. This is invariant for all observers. So, if you go by the theory of relativity, what exists are laws and relations, not some "concrete reality" with "substances". So where does perception fit in, in relativity, is what I would like to find out.



the problem is not that we would bend rules for anything less than Planck length. The problem is we really don't have models for it! In fact our models break down at those levels- quantum gravity dominates known forces. It's also a measurement problem- using photons, we cant measure anything smaller than Planck. if i remember correctly, we might not be able to break particles down to smaller sizes... if we do, it turns into energy. Also note that there was a time when we didn't think anything could get smaller than an atom...

coming back to the main question, i think what we have before us is a world of perceptions. Different creatures perceive the same thing differently... perhaps even subatomic particles have perception, one that is at complete variance from ours. Which brings us back to the key question- in the midst of all we perceive, what is reality? 
Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by return_to_hades


There is a scene though where the character Cypher is eating a steak. He knows the steak is not real. He knows the Matrix is telling his mind that it is juicy and delicious. But the most important thing he has realized is that ignorance is bliss. If it looks like a steak, smells like a steak, tastes like a steak, it is a steak. Damn whatever true reality is. Perception is reality.

What if due to some reason his steak is perceived to be taken away ? If perception is reality ignorance in this scene may not be perceived as very blissful :)

Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum




Which brings us back to the key question- in the midst of all we perceive, what is reality?

 


Essentially, there are no unbiased opinions as the phrase "unbiased opinion" sounds more like an oxymoron. At the same time, we agree or disagree with an opinion or a perception, if we share the same opinion or perception as that of the other person. Alternatively, we also agree with the other person's perception or opinion if we believe that the other person is MORE knowledgeable.

If Einstein says that space-time is curved, and if his Math proves it, regardless of what I perceive space-time to be, I *will* have to agree with Einstein's perception because he applied the scientific method. In this case, knowledge wins.

If Einstein thinks that Elvis is the best rock-star there ever was, I don't have to agree with his perception because no scientific method was applied. 

So it looks like, knowledge is key when determining the truth behind reality.

Problem is, knowledge is not applicable in all situations. A question such as "who is the best rock star of all time" has no answer in reality. It only exists in perception.

If that's the case, what else exists only in perception? What exists in reality, outside of perception?

Some random thoughts there; not sure how coherent they are. Monday morning you see :)

Posted: 9 years ago
Originally posted by _Angie_



Question 1- if identity was based merely on a deep-rooted sense of discreteness that the senses generate, would a person, alone in a dark, quiet room - whose brain is not being fed with sensory inputs - consider himself as non-existent?

This person has a priori knowledge. That can't be nullified into non-existence so I would say he will not consider himself non-existent in a dark quiet room with no sense data. May be he will feel a little disoriented but that's about it. IMO.

Question2- Without any sensory inputs  can there be any data bank to draw ideas from?

History "embedded" in DNA will serve as the data bank.

Question 3- How would the "intelligent designer"  be able to design intelligently without any databank to fall back on?

True, but it would also mean we are getting stuck in an infinite regress and if we manage to get out of it, we might find the answer.

Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

15 Participants 109 Replies 6790Views

Topic started by charminggenie

Last replied by K.Universe.

loader
loader
up-open TOP