But they're not things until they're cognised. — Wayfarer

What could that mean? I think, as I just described to , that it is better - clearer, more coherent - if we do exactly the other. So the gold at the new Boorara gold project near Kalgoorlie in Western Australia was there before it was discovered. It did not come into existence at the discovery.

I never use the word. — Wayfarer

You never use the word. Nevertheless it plays a big part in your thinking.

So the gold at the new Boorara gold project near Kalgoorlie in Western Australia was there before it was discovered. It did not come into existence at the discovery. — Banno

So you still can't see how I can acknowledge that this is empirically true, yet still maintain that it is not a mind-independent fact?

It just seems to me that you are saying it wrong. The bit were a truth is a single-place predicate but a saying, acknowledging, seeing, maintaining and so on are relational. And a fact is what is true. SO we set up (even construct) a language in which we set out the state of the ground around Boorara in a specific way. But doing that does not change what is the case at Boorara. Stating (using, believing...) the fact is dependent on the language used, and how we divide Boorara up. But that does not change how Boorara is.

Again, the realist/antirealist dichotomy is muddled.

And this is the bit where you say "quantum".

And this is the bit where you say "quantum". — Banno

No, it's the bit where Kant says 'were I to remove the thinking subject, the whole world must vanish'.

I looked up the exact quote:

"Now space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception. If we remove the subject, they vanish as well, as do all appearances. Nothing can remain that is not, in its own way, an object of experience." (Critique of Pure Reason, A42/B59)

Kantian bullshit. So you now admit to idealism, of the transcendental sort?

...space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception...

...Einstein disagrees.

That the world is not seen is not that it ceases to exist or even to be invisible.

Einstein disagrees. — Banno

Quite. Subject of a current Aeon essay on the debate between Bergson and Einstein:

To examine the measurements involved in clock time, Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state – the current time – is what we call ‘now’. Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do.

That the world is not seen is not that it ceases to exist or even to be invisible. — Janus

Apart from any conception of it, it neither exists nor doesn't exist. Both existence and non-existence are concepts.

Apart from any conception of it, it neither exists nor doesn't exist. Both existence and non-existence are concepts. — Wayfarer

To say it neither exists nor doesn't exist is meaningless. Existence is actuality, 'existence' is a concept and non-existence is a concept only, simply because it cannot be an actuality.

You seem to be moving around a lot. Apologising for Bergson?

You seem to be moving around a lot. Apologising for Bergson? — Banno

It's the same point that Kant was making, about how time has a subjective component, arising from the awareness of duration. What is it that connects the moments of a pendulum swing into a coherent series which we call 'an interval of time' other than that awareness?

What a strange question! Time is nothing more than change. Time as measured is a measure of change. The pendulum is constantly changing position when we are aware of it, as it does when no one is aware of it.

It's time for a change—it's time you started genuinely engaging with your interlocutors. You never know—you might learn something new.

Moving from the topic at hand onto something less tractable, and derailing the line fo argument. Meh.

It's time for a change—it's time you started genuinely engaging with your interlocutors. You never know—you might learn something new. — Janus

That would depend on there being a valid objection.

Moving from the topic at hand — Banno

It is quite on-topic. You mentioned Einstein - Bergson's argument for the role of subjective awareness as an essential component of time is plainly similar to Kant's argument that time is 'a form of our intuition', rather than something possessing absolute or objective existence. It was in that respect that he disagreed with Einstein's scientific realism, so it's directly relevant.

But they're not things until they're cognised.
— Wayfarer
What could that mean? — Banno

Imagine that all life has vanished from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed. Matter is scattered about in space in the same way as it is now, there is sunlight, there are stars, planets and galaxies—but all of it is unseen. There is no human or animal eye to cast a glance at objects, hence nothing is discerned, recognized or even noticed. Objects in the unobserved universe have no shape, color or individual appearance, because shape and appearance are created by minds. Nor do they have features, because features correspond to categories of animal sensation. This is the way the early universe was before the emergence of life—and the way the present universe is outside the view of any observer.

If you want the most radical thesis on time check out The End of Time by Julian Barbour. I've been reading, and trying to understand, it, and it's doing my head in (in a good way). — Janus

I'm reading his 'the nature of time', which is a shorter account of his overall understanding. As I understand it, for Barbour, what we experience as the passage of time is tied to the way observers interact with the universe’s configurations. This makes time observer-dependent, rooted in human perception rather than a property of the universe itself.

Ground control to Major Tom...

Imagine that all life has vanished from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed.

Then there would still be gold in Boorara. It would be true that there was gold in Boorara.

Imagine that all life has vanished from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed. — Banno

Right. Imagine it. There you are - that's the 'implicit perspective' that I'm referring to.

...and you slide again. Try to stay on a topic.


There is gold in Boorara. If all life disappeared from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed... your hypothetical, not mine... by the definition you gave, there would still gold in Boorara.

There is gold in Boorara. If all life disappeared from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed... your hypothetical, not mine... by the definition you gave, there would still gold in Boorara. — Banno

The same can be said for any empirical fact whatever, but that is still not the point at issue.

Incidentally, the passage I quoted was the absract of Chapter 1 of Charles S. Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order, which is essentially about the convergence of cognitive science and philosophy in support of a thesis about the foundational role of cognition in the cosmic order.

The book’s argument begins with the British empiricists who raised our awareness of the fact that we have no direct contact with physical reality, but it is the mind that constructs the form and features of objects. It is shown that modern cognitive science brings this insight a step further by suggesting that shape and structure are not internal to objects, but arise in the observer. The author goes yet further by arguing that the meaningful connectedness between things — the hierarchical organization of all we perceive — is the result of the Gestalt nature of perception and thought, and exists only as a property of mind.

It's the same point that Kant was making, about how time has a subjective component, arising from the awareness of duration. — Wayfarer

No, it's the bit where Kant says 'were I to remove the thinking subject, the whole world must vanish'.

I looked up the exact quote:

"Now space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception. If we remove the subject, they vanish as well, as do all appearances. Nothing can remain that is not, in its own way, an object of experience." (Critique of Pure Reason, A42/B59) — Wayfarer

It's a misreading. Kant is not saying here that space and time vanish as soon as the subject vanishes. Look again. "space and time exist only in the subject as modes of perception. Because to Kant, even space and time are only appearances to us. If space and time are perceived, then they are object of experience only. If we remove the perceiver, then there's no object of experience, is there?

Because to Kant, even space and time are only appearances to us. — L'éléphant

The 'forms of intuition' - namely, space and time - and the world of appearances exist only in relation to the subject's cognitive faculties. If the thinking subject were removed, what we understand as the empirical world would also cease to exist because it is dependent the structures of human cognition.

If we remove the perceiver, then there's no object of experience, is there? — L'éléphant

Right.

but that is still not the point at issue. — Wayfarer

Yeah, it is: Are there truths when no one is around. You tried for a counterexample, but it doesn't work.

Here we go with the defence of Kant yet again.

The 'forms of intuition' - namely, space and time - and the world of appearances exist only in relation to the subject's cognitive faculties. If the thinking subject were removed, what we understand as the empirical world would also cease to exist because it is dependent the structures of human cognition. — Wayfarer

Correct. The world wouldn't disappear if we disappeared.
Here we can also bring in Wittgenstein. The the limit of the world would be disabled as well.

The world wouldn't disappear if we disappeared. — L'éléphant

We might imagine that it would continue to exist, but whatever existence it possesses would be unrecognisable to human intelligence. I did mention Wittgenstein.

there truths when no one is around — Banno

Yours is basically the argument from the stone.

Yours is basically the argument from the stone. — Wayfarer

A succinct and powerful rebuttal of Bishop Berkeley's "ingenious sophistry" in my opinion; a precursor to Moore's 'Here is a hand".

Here it is again, since you seem unable to provide a rebuttal. It is true that there is gold in Boorara. If all life disappeared from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed, then it would still be true that there is gold in Boorara.

...but whatever existence it possesses would be unrecognisable to human intelligence. — Wayfarer

Well, no. There would still be gold in Boorara. That is quite intelligible.

It is true that there is gold in Boorara. If all life disappeared from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed, then it would still be true that there would still gold in Boorara. — Banno

But as I said, that is the case for any empirical fact whatever. You're loosing sight of what 'mind independent' means if indeed you ever had sight of it.

That would depend on there being a valid objection. — Wayfarer

If you think an objection is not valid the way to engage would be to explain why you think that. Having observed the way you participate here for a long time it seems much more likely to me that you ignore objections to which you have no comeback.

But as I said, that is the case for any empirical fact whatever. — Wayfarer

Well, no, the facts concerning life would presumably have varied somewhat... but for the others, yes, and this only serves to show how much we would know about such a universe. It doesn't work in your favour.

You're loosing sight of what 'mind independent' means if indeed you ever had sight of it. — Wayfarer

Perhaps I've shown that "mind independent" is not so clear as you seem to think. You tried to show a case of mind-independence, and instead of what you wanted, it shows that we can still talk of truths.

we can still talk of truths. — Banno

That was never at issue, but please let's leave it there.

That was never at issue, — Wayfarer

Well, yes it was... that there are still facts even when no one is around.

Well, yes it was... that there are still facts even when no one is around. — Banno

Which neither you nor anyone would ever know, were we not around :rage:

By ‘creating reality’, I’m referring to the way the brain receives, organises and integrates cognitive data, along with memory and expectation, so as to generate the unified world–picture within which we situate and orient ourselves. And although the unified nature of our experience of this ‘world-picture’ seems simple and even self-evident, neuroscience has yet to understand or explain how the disparate elements of experience , memory, expectation and judgement, all come together to form a unified whole — even though this is plainly what we experience.

By investing the objective domain with a mind-independent status, as if it exists independently of any mind, we absolutize it. We designate it as truly existent, irrespective of and outside any knowledge of it. This gives rise to a kind of cognitive disorientation which underlies many current philosophical conundrums. — Wayfarer

Which neither you nor anyone would ever know — Wayfarer

It is true that there is gold in Boorara. If all life disappeared from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed, then it would still be true that there is gold in Boorara.

And further, from this argument, we know that there would still be gold in Boorara.

So we do know stuff. Again, what you say doesn't work.