I hate to butt in on a comment not directed at me, especially a comment not directly related to the reincarnation subject, but this one hit me. I, pretty much a realist-monist of sorts, agree with this assessment. Sans language that seems to render common definition that this semi-persistent state of not-really-particles makes up what we both agree is a cup, the designation has no existence.The fact that you call it 'a cup' and that it performs that function is dependent on human designation, perception and convention. If you were a micro-organism-sized intelligence that lived in the water in the cup, it might be 'the ocean', as far as you're concerned. You imagine the cup 'being there', in the cupboard, when nobody's around looking at it, but that's still an image, an imaginary act, constituted by your human mind, which classifies objects according to their shape, function and so on and situates them in the imaginary 'empty space'. There is no intrinsic cup apart from that. — Wayfarer
Somebody posted in my one thread that to exist is to be named. — noAxioms
I went on a different direction, not basing existence on epistemology. The existing thing corresponding to "Jupiter" seems to be the naive realist thing that is the object of language, whether I know what it really is or not. But the thing-in-itself that we suppose corresponds to that name seems in fact not to have the sort of observer-independent existence we imagine. There is not still something real out there.With no one experiencing it, there is still something real out there, but it unknown what it is. — Rich
This seems not a QM thing where consciousness is collapsing the complex wave function into cup. But a few million years ago, there was no Jupiter, there was not even particles. That Jupiter only exists now.
Somebody posted in my one thread that to exist is to be named. I brushed that off at first, but it has been working its way in all this time. — noAxioms
Well I'm one of those, since the interpretation does away with so many problematic things only at the cost of a thing-in-itself corresponding to 'me', which isn't much of a price to a non-religious sort that I am. That which I perceive as 'me', the thing for whose benefit I draw breath, seems to be just a carrot on a stick leading me on fit paths. Yea, I still follow the carrot, but at least I'm not suckered into buying an insurance policy for it.People will go to amazing lengths to avoid this conclusion, including the 'Everett speculation'. — Wayfarer
That is, there is no 'ultimate object' which exists 'independently' of all perception - which is pretty well what has been shown by quantum mechanics, — Wayfarer
What I am denying is the elicit conclusion that this quantum mechanical stuff shows that "there is no 'ultimate object' which exists 'independently' of all perception".
But, to confuse you a bit more, I'll add that I agree that there is no "ultimate" object, and deny that this means that there are no objects. — Banno
Utilizing Bohm's and Bell's extraordinary accomplishments we can suggest a metaphysics that claims everything out there is real, entangled, and without boundaries. Each of us experience it via our very real mind/consciousness. — Rich
This leads us to the notion of a private language, which has been thoroughly, and I think successfully criticised. Nor does this follow form what was said before.However, how we experience it is internal and can only be known to the individual. — Rich
Our difference is that between the Copenhagen and the von Neumann. That is, is it the consciousness of the experimenter that collapses the wave function? — Banno
But that (that there is no 'ultimate object') just not the case. It is a metaphysical presumption made by one small group of physicists and not generally accepted. — Banno
The fact that you call it 'a cup' and that it performs that function is dependent on human designation, perception and convention. If you were a micro-organism-sized intelligence that lived in the water in the cup, it might be 'the ocean', as far as you're concerned. You imagine the cup 'being there', in the cupboard, when nobody's around looking at it, but that's still an image, an imaginary act, constituted by your human mind, which classifies objects according to their shape, function and so on and situates them in the imaginary 'empty space'. There is no intrinsic cup apart from that.
— Wayfarer
Sure.
What are the microbes swimming in? The cup. They see an ocean, we see a cup, but we are talking about the very same thing.
So we can conclude that there is a something that is an ocean to the microbes and a cup to us.
What is not justified is the conclusion that there is neither an ocean nor a cup. — Banno
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism? non-skeptical realism · 82% (760/931) other ················· 9% (86/931) skepticism ············ 5% (45/931) idealism ·············· 4% (40/931)
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.