Perhaps the idea of "universe" is "collective" ... like language. — 180 Proof

A kind of mass hallucination.

One dreams alone. One, however, shares the real world with others. — 180 Proof

Mass hallucination; more realistically, mass delusion.

!!That we can't (even if we wake up) is the heart of skepticism
... solipsism — 180 Proof

Solopsism? Deus deceptor (Descartes) & Brain-in-a-vat (Harman).

G'nite.

G'nite — 180 Proof

:grin:

Mass hallucination; more realistically, mass delusion. — Agent Smith

On that assumption what remains to be explained is how it is that we all see the same things in the same locations.

But I would not understand what you would mean to say that something like tables and chairs are in any way mind independent. — Manuel

Say humanity was instantly and totally wiped out somehow; you don't think all the buildings, roads, furniture, cars and so on would remain?

On that assumption what remains to be explained is how it is that we all see the same things in the same locations. — Janus

Movie theaters?

Why not? Houses, bridges, cars, doors, steps, parks, roads, sidewalks etc, etc.

Why not? Houses, bridges, cars, doors, steps, parks, roads, sidewalks etc, etc. — Janus

All theatrical. One thing that puzzles me is why the universe is more a nightmare than a wet dream?

Say humanity was instantly and totally wiped out somehow; you don't think all the buildings, roads, furniture, cars and so on would remain? — Janus

It's an empty question. There'd be no-one around to answer yes or no.

One thing that puzzles me is why the universe is more a nightmare than a wet dream? — Agent Smith

Life is like a movie, but with real blood.

Life is like a movie, but with real blood. — Wayfarer

:up: Suffering makes it real. Why?

Because it can't plausibly be denied.

That, incidentally, is the 'First Noble Truth' of Buddhism.

Because it can't plausibly be denied.

That, incidentally, is the 'First Noble Truth' of Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Suffering can't be denied! :chin: Why I wonder? What makes suffering some kind of marker for reality? Bitter truth! Sweet little lies. Hard facts, convenient fiction. Does this mean hell is realer than heaven?

(Responded in this thread.)

We know more about hell than paradise if descriptions of both in religious texts is anything to go by. If someone knows more about Paris than London, isn't it likelier that he lived/lives in Paris than in London? :grin: :broken: :grimace: :groan: :sad: :cry:

How can reality need an observer? It needs an observer to observe it, not to create it.

How can reality need an observer? It needs an observer to observe it, not to create it. — Raymond

Good question. If reality needs an observer then reality and observation are one and the same. If this is the case then where is the observer in relation to reality/observation? This idea that reality needs an observer ends up defining the observer and observation out of existence and what remains is only reality - wirhout an observer.

Say humanity was instantly and totally wiped out somehow; you don't think all the buildings, roads, furniture, cars and so on would remain? — Janus

Something would remain, yes. That's the belief in the external world.

But what would remain would not be "buildings", "roads", "furniture" nor "cars". They would be "things", or some other very general, abstract term.

I very much doubt another creature has these concepts, nor knows what these things are.

Something would remain, yes. That's the belief in the external world.

But what would remain would not be "buildings", "roads", "furniture" nor "cars". They would be "things", or some other very general, abstract term.

I very much doubt another creature has these concepts, nor knows what these things are. — Manuel

I don't see any reason to think that buildings, roads and so on would not remain if all humans were gone. What about remains of previous cultures which have been buried and then unearthed? Such items had been not been perceived for centuries, even millennia, and yet are recognizable as buildings, pottery and so on.

Why would there have to be creatures with "these concepts" in order for physical structures in various forms to exist? I don't think such structures are dependent for their continuing existence on our conceptions of them, even if they had been dependent on such conceptions for their creation.

Whether or not anyone would be around is not relevant to the cogency of the question, just as what was around prior to the advent of humanity is not an "empty question".

All theatrical. One thing that puzzles me is why the universe is more a nightmare than a wet dream? — Agent Smith

Whether life is more suffering than joy is up to you. In any case it is impossible to quantify, so such a judgement is down to disposition.

Well, if a previous culture was gone, and we recover it, we reconstruct (or attempt to) what we think their symbols meant, that's granting the point that the culture we retrieve is human (like-us), otherwise, I'd be skeptical that we could make much sense of what it left.

Why would there have to be creatures with "these concepts" in order for physical structures in various forms to exist? — Janus

No, I don't doubt that some kind of structure remains. But I think a structure can only make sense to a creature that makes sense of it. I can't well say that a physical structure makes sense to itself.

It very likely exists it some manner, I don't doubt that, but what can be said of this existence, absent people is very little.

For instance, I don't think a feline creature or an insect, would make sense of a building, and if the only creatures that remained after a nuclear holocaust were insects, then there'd be very little world to speak of, it would be something like an undifferentiated mass, with places to go to and maybe some food.

It needs an observer to observe it, not to create it. — Raymond

That is what is called into question by the 'observer problem' in physics. It is the exact reason why Einstein felt compelled to ask 'does the moon continue to exist when nobody's looking?' It seems that at a fundamental level the supposition of 'mind-independence' no longer holds. That is the most philosophically challenging discovery of 20th c physics. It's why there's the many-worlds intepretation.

At risk of further flogging a dead horse, all judgements about what exists, what is real, and so on, are taken within the framework of the understanding. You think that this means that if you were to die or become unconscious then all these things will cease to exist, which is why you think it's an absurd idea, but I'm not saying that. The manner of the existence of the universe absent any consciousness is unknowable by definition.

There's a key term that has come out of the embodied cognition/enactivist school of thought. It is the idea of the 'co-arising of self and world'. This originated with Buddhism, but Varela and Thompson also tie it to phenomenology. Anyone interested in an academic paper on that see The Co-arising of Self and Object, World, and Society: Buddhist and Scientific Approaches, William Waldron.

:up:

It very likely exists it some manner, I don't doubt that, but what can be said of this existence, absent people is very little.

For instance, I don't think a feline creature or an insect, would make sense of a building, and if the only creatures that remained after a nuclear holocaust were insects, then there'd be very little world to speak of, it would be something like an undifferentiated mass, with places to go to and maybe some food. — Manuel

I agree that the function of such things as buildings, roads and so on would be lost if there were no sentient beings capable of grasping it. But that says nothing about whether the actual structures would remain; and that is all I've been claiming.



Judgements about what exists are not, to my way of thinking, what exists. You say "the manner of the existence of the universe absent any consciousness is unknowable by definition"; I see this as a trivial truism, which simply says that we cannot know something without being there to know it. We can imagine the manner of the existence of the universe without us, though. We can look back some 13 billion light years and see how the universe was long before we existed. We thus know that it existed long before we did. From that we can conclude that it would continue to exist if we were totally wiped out.

So, from an ontic perspective the world is prior to the self, whereas from a phenomenological perspective the self is prior to the world. I don't see this as a contradiction; the two paradigms are incommensurable.

But that says nothing about whether the actual structures would remain; and that is all I've been claiming. — Janus

:lol:

I enjoy arguing with you and @Mww, because, so far, it's always been pleasant we may agree to disagree without feeling mad or anything.

I don't think I've disputed that structures remain. We agree here.

What do you gain by saying "actual" structure? I ask because, I could imagine another intelligent being, conceptualizing the same thing, in a way we would not. For example what we call a "pond", could be bed to that creature.

The same structure causes us to see a pond, causes an alien to see a bed.

Apropos of Buddhist philosophy, consider this declaration. Here the Buddha is talking to the character Kaccāna about the nature of existence, so it is one of the 'philosophical' suttas, and also one of the founding texts of Madhyamaka (middle way) philosophy.

Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence. But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world. The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting. But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.

This is how right view is defined. ‘All exists’: this is one extreme. ‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. … [the rest of the 12 elements of dependent origination follow] — Kaccanagotta Sutta

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/bodhi

I think that, in this view, arguments about 'what exists in the absence of an observer' would be categorised amongst the 'undecided' (avyākṛta) questions - questions that are not answered, or put aside, as not germane to the task of understanding the cause and cessation of suffering.

The appropriate attitude that arises from this is suspension of judgement. That is the sense that Buddhism ties in with Pyrrhonian scepticism and Husserl's epoché or 'bracketing'.

(About which see Epoché and Śūnyatā, Jay Garfield, and also Pyrrho and India, Everard Flintoff.)

The same structure causes us to see a pond, causes an alien to see a bed. — Manuel

What we take to be real is dependent on the kind of being that we are.

I agree that our discussions have always been pleasant (and mine with @Mww as well). I am never quite sure with you too whether we are actually disagreeing at all.

What do you gain by saying "actual" structure? I ask because, I could imagine another intelligent being, conceptualizing the same thing, in a way we would not. For example what we call a "pond", could be bed to that creature.

The same structure causes us to see a pond, causes an alien to see a bed. — Manuel

Probably I should have said "bare structures", because of course the kinds of structures we are considering are actual, not imaginary. I was just trying to indicate the thing without its human- conceived function(s).

So, yes I agree that the same thing could have very different functions for differently constituted creatures.

Sure, I agree, but I must grant "powers" (to use Locke's vocabulary) to the objects, such that they cause in us experience so and so, repeatedly. These "powers" are only considered as such, for creatures with experience, of course.

Thus the same structure causes two different (or many) "realities" to different creatures. But if I don't postulate a structure behind the experience, I'm forced to say that I'm causing my own experiences of objects.

What we take to be real is dependent on the kind of being that we are. — Wayfarer

I have no doubt that other animals see the same things we do. They recognize the same things as food, water, trees, and so on. You don't see birds trying to eat stones; they eat fruit just as we do , for example.

Maybe in terms of emphasising a word or putting a bit more weight to one thing vs. another, but nothing big.

I get you. These actual things are really weird, what some abstract fields are at the bottom of everything, how the heck do we tell differences apart based on what physics says?