You’re correct that a frame of reference alone is spatio-temporal, but what the matter is like requires a conscious observer. — Noah Te Stroete

Why would you believe that properties require a conscious observer?

Why would you believe that properties require a conscious observer? — Terrapin Station

What things are like are not inherent properties of matter, but properties of thought.

What things are like are not inherent properties of matter, but properties of thought. — Noah Te Stroete

Do you believe that there are properties of things without conscious observers?

Do you believe that there are properties of things without conscious observers? — Terrapin Station

I believe we could have no knowledge of them or know anything about them.

[

The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be a "basic substance" is incoherent, though.
— Terrapin Station

I don’t see why? Please explain. — Noah Te Stroete

Because, for example, energy makes no sense without there being something that's in motion or capable of motion.

I believe we could have no knowledge of them or know anything about them. — Noah Te Stroete

We can deal with whether we can have knowledge of them later. I'm asking if you believe that there are properties of things sans conscious observers. I'm not asking you if or how you have knowledge of such properties.

The world existed long before us and our machines.
— S

No kidding. — Noah Te Stroete

So then you understand why it was silly to point out that these man-made machines are made through human intentionality, and that they require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation? Well durr! But that has no logical bearing on anything.

Because, for example, energy makes no sense without there being something that's in motion or capable of motion. — Terrapin Station

Knowledge or perception of motion requires an observer. Without an observer, something there might just as well be nothing there. There’s nothing to discern the motion to say there is motion.

Knowledge or perception of motion requires an observer. Without an observer, something there might just as well be nothing there. There’s nothing to discern the motion to say there is motion. — Noah Te Stroete

Could you explain what this has to do with the comment of mine it's a response to? Was my comment about epistemology, or somehow saying anything pro or con what you responded with? (I just noticed that I made a mistake re quotation--I'll go back and fix that.)

I have thought about this for years. — Noah Te Stroete

And? Do you want a badge? Just because you've thought about this for years, that doesn't mean you're right. You could be just as wrong, if not more so, ten years from now.

Anyone who says things like, "I've written a book", or, "I've thought about this for years", just gives me cause for suspicion.

What would matter even look like without it being perceived? It takes an observer to make the amorphous and undifferentiated become form and differentiated. — Noah Te Stroete

So now you've just gone into "silly idealist assumption" mode?

So then you understand why it was silly to point out that man-made machines are made through human intentionality, and that they require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation? — S

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang. This is one theory of how the universe began. A fluctuation in the quantum foam expanded and inflated into our universe. Just as wave functions require an observer to collapse, it would seem that an observer would be required for the fluctuation in the quantum foam to come into existence.

My bad. I thought I was responding to @Terrapin Station. Fuck off S.

And? Do you want a badge? Just because you've thought about this for years, that doesn't mean you're right. You could be just as wrong, if not more so, ten years from now. — S

Exactly. Probably most folks posting here have thought about the stuff they're saying for years. It's going on 45+ years for me (based on when I first became interested in philosophy and started thinking about this stuff) . . . and I know there are folks around here who are older than I am.

Wave functions collapse everywhere without any observer. Does sunlight not interact with all the places on earth where nobody is looking and that's why the globe is warming? Because there are more brains around remotely collapsing waves.

Nonsense.

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang . . . — Noah Te Stroete

Someone has been reading Copenhagen Interpretation stuff (while probably misunderstanding its senses of "observer" and "measurement") while basically falling for it hook, line and sinker.

By “scientism” I am saying that you put faith in science to explain everything, including consciousness. — Noah Te Stroete

Haha! Nothing whatsoever that I've said justifies that assumption you've made about me. It just highlights your tendency to jump to conclusions.

Was my comment about epistemology, or somehow saying anything pro or con what you responded with? — Terrapin Station

Metaphysics and epistemology go hand in hand. Without epistemology, there would be no metaphysics.

Metaphysics and epistemology go hand in hand. Without epistemology, there would be no metaphysics. — Noah Te Stroete

So yes, my comment was about epistemology and it was saying something pro or con the content of your response?

By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia. — Noah Te Stroete

Well that's ridiculous. Why don't you just call your toaster "God" and be done with it? Then you can get your rocks off by telling everyone that God exists. You've seen Him with your own eyes. You can show Him to anyone who doubts you.

Does sunlight not interact with all the places on earth where nobody is looking and that's why the globe is warming? — Razorback kitten

Warming and inhabitability are human and life-form problems, but you make a good point. It may be that the motion of air particles is speeding up, oscillating at a higher frequency, but without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter. Pardon the pun.

It’s very difficult to keep up with this barrage from now three people. I don’t read edited posts. Please repost. I will not respond to @S.

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang. This is one theory of how the universe began. A fluctuation in the quantum foam expanded and inflated into our universe. Just as wave functions require an observer to collapse, it would seem that an observer would be required for the fluctuation in the quantum foam to come into existence. — Noah Te Stroete

You're just making things up that aren't justified by the science. It's important to distinguish between what the science says and what some novice science-readers with religious motives have to say about it. The latter is often full of crap.

I will not respond to S. — Noah Te Stroete

Because you can't take harsh criticism. I'm not the type to mollycoddle. But blocking it out does you more harm than good.

without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter. — Noah Te Stroete

No realist would disagree with that. Notions, knowledge, experiences, meaning, mattering are all things that people do. It's just that that's irrelevant to the issue (re the sun warming things). What you pointed out would be like saying, "Yes, perhaps the sun is warming things, but without a camera, there could be no photographs."

...but without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter. — Noah Te Stroete

Uh oh. He's stuck in the idealist trap of missing the point. They never seem to realise how stupid what they're saying is. It's like: without feet, I couldn't get a foot massage. Or, without eyes, I couldn't see what you looked like.

In that trying, beware the bane of speculative philosophy.....the dreaded, but nonetheless ever-present, categorical error.

In that trying, beware the bane of speculative philosophy.....the dreaded, but nonetheless ever-present, categorical error. — Mww

I tried.

Try harder.

My point was that I was an atheist for a long time. — Noah Te Stroete

You should go back to being an atheist, unless you don't really care about things like truth, or reason, or science, or evidence.

What you pointed out would be like saying, "Yes, perhaps the sun is warming things, but without a camera, there could be no photographs." — Terrapin Station

You’re right. You beat me.

At least you can learn, which is more than we can say for 90+ percent of the folks around here. ;-)