yes it gets very complicated as it pertains to a being in the world. Should we bother to differentiate reactions? I think we should so I see observation as not effecting will (maybe guiding and persuading it but not effecting it), which i percieve as work from more primordial/fundamental reactions.

I do not see sense reactions as structurally as important as digestive reactions, or digestive reactions as important as fertilization and the work that proceeds them. I think a natural hierarchy of reactions is important. therefore i think differentiation is important, so although indeed observation is reaction as is digestion or fertilisation, i do not think it honest to say that we have rearranged their hierarchy in any true sense to call observation action.

yeah thanks, I'll try to make it less spewy. Its really just laziness, i spend a lot of time crafting writing either for legal work or lyrical prose. Both of those disciplines are time consuming, so I get online and want to chug espresso and spew ideas.

Im approaching the topic by reading a book by Schrodinger called 'what is life' because apart from just observing the world in my way, i have only really read philosophy (mostly nietzsche) some biology and the rest novels and plays etc. so im hoping shrodengers book will be a window into modern physics for me. I like abstraction but just havent any time to develop my math.

If you can recommend other books that do not explain through math, that would be good. but i totally understand if you simply cannot understand modern physics without math.

look i agree with you but im using the term real as if real is variable and relative to our evolution. I totally believe there is an external world for which sense is in relation, but i dont think its real as in the universal concrete version chosen by abstract thought, which i believe has no special place, like we can ascertain a reality that is totally accurate universally simply because we use a culture of mathematics and experiment. the thing is you don´t either, at present nobody does.

our senses are susceptible to illusion and ignorance, and so is our abstract world. but that is a good thing because the external world is always there, even though its changing, we can change with it and always keep our relation to it as close as possible.

usually when you give the argument people agree with you in essence but they still want to believe in the possible universal validity of their senses or abstract thought. they want this so bad because its a social value to be closest in the relationship to the external world, so the value real means that you are at that pinnacle of accuracy. but this drive to be accurate is always in danger of being mistaken to make the world we experience as the real one. or that science has achieved a universal perception that can clarify the senses and thought for eternity.

but what would happen if believing that we had finished the job has a negative effect on us for we have evolved to perceive a changing world and not a static one. so if science says we know whats going on maybe that degrades our relationship to the external world rather than enhancing it. that is the route and reason for my skepticism, not that i think we live in a dream.

you mean I am not in touch with reality? My name is there, you can say it. So by way of minimal comment and abbreviation you suggest to the other members that you of course are in touch with reality. The internet gives young people a means to express themself and all they do is act like their institutions are all that should matter. Don't think I don't notice your tone is borrowed from the current political climate in the U.S. Look, Philosophy is about escaping from the pressure to always think and do what will be accepted. I know that my every expression is not defined clearly for others and do not think that any failure to express elevates what I say, but if you were a real thinker and not just a child determined to be accepted, you wouldnt mind a little confusion in an expression.and you certainly would not mind a point of view that does not conform correctly, be it by error or otherwise.

belief in a real world is dubious because our perception is based on our own created life values. science uses experiment to validate theories about the real world but they only validate it to other beings that share the same values. In that process the idea of the real world sneaks by without resolving the fact that we are basically making up the world to conform to our values. Scientific instruments are not real in the sense that there is no possible way to ascertain the real world from a being that cannot objectively ascertain the real world external to their values. Why do values pose such a problem? well look at how we behave economically and politically. Saying this I do believe that science is our best shot and also that our value created world is still a valid mirror of the external world and not some pure simulation, but it is not special,external or real. But the point I was trying to make was only made if there was naivety that our observations could change the external world. i raised my point because if you forget yourself and philosophically merge your perceptions to the objective world you are trying to accurately mirror, you forget that your creating what you percieve to conform to a value matrix; you believe the mirror of your perception is flawless (for that is one of our values in operation, self aggrandisement). Now one off shoot of believing this is that because the truth is, that your 'making it up', is that you can also effect the real world, you can make up the external world, you can manipulate it by knowing it. We can of course manipulate the external world through our knowledge of it, but not by observation alone, this would definitely be an error. but someone already pointed out that it was detection not observation that interfered with the experiment. That means to me that we are still respecting our perceptual boundaries. well the scientists are, the commentators, not so much.

ok so the depth of the problem is based in idealism, you may have to read about it to understand why I would link the fact the instruments are man made to be of any relevance to the problem. Its just an extension of the idealist philosophical problem from us to our instruments. but there is someone that has already outlined the difficulty I was having so no need to worry. thanks

Thank you very much, detection and observation are two hugely different things and many people use observation in their description. thanks for clearing that up, you should copy paste it to like a hundred youtube videos, haha.

observations are not our actions though right? I always knew there was some passifying quility to it lurking beneath.

ok i dont know why your talking about love particularly but im glad you agree that observations don't change anything.

i think your mistaking observations for actions.

yeah ive got a terrible habit of expressing my self at the beggining of formulating an idea rather than at the end. ok but its going to take me a while. ill work on it and try again.

ok yeah, I would need to clear up ownership and possession. Now in a sharing economy possession is moral where the the rest of the community has warranted a continuation of the possession or every person gets equal amount. But taking of possession is amoral for there is nobody to even if there was a way to divide up the world equally. but like i said your possession can be scrutinised by the whole community and if you still have it after that it would be moral possession. Why is ownership different? well ownership today is absolute possession based on contract or deed. This originated as a system of ownership where the person with divine right from god (universal moral authority) could bestow possesion to one person and thereafter he would have a right from the deed (way over simplified probs tok 3-4 centuries of bullshit reasoning). In old roman law possession could be decreed from a court in the same way, but you could still lose possession afterward if the state of your possession had changed. With absolute ownership there is little you can do/not do to lose possession. The hideous hierarchical moment of man is everything I hate about society.... anyway my point is that possession can be moral after a judgement from say a democratic court, but it would have to be judged moral after the taking of posession which is amoral or if you like before moral. In todays world the contract or deed is full of shit for it stops the challenge of possession. therefore everything owned is simply possessed before decree and therefore amoral or before moral. my argument is something like just because you obtained the ring outwith contract, makes no moral difference to the possession because if you had a contract that absolute ownership has no moral basis either. but I feel ive used a little sophistry to associate my reasoning with my prefered pithy comment.

i thought you were arguing for a moral economics, you changed. And I am an anarchist in the way I do not believe in authority over others, but yeah sometimes its a very conservative position because its anti-state, but its also anti-employer. And look the next time you call someone a fool, your answer better be absolutely golden. was it even an answer? ok so you think I am so stupid you dont even understand my points. ok, i guess thats fair, but its a second call for clarification and soon its you that looks stupid. when you legislate you in no way change the amoral* character of profit making, its not suddenly moral because you create a floodgate so we dont end up rioting. and look good/bad marketing doesnt matter, its the act of ownership that makes it amoral. the reason it is amoral is because it does not universally apply. ownership. just how the world works, then why are you arguing what i said? and nothing is just how the world works, because we could easily enter a sharing economy and there are many sharing communities in existence. just not in us eurpoe china au etc but they exist in pockets.

hey tim, im not even right wing, i lean toward being an anarchist, but im not in actuality as im a part of a very capitalist community. So yeah im cool with reasoning this. ok immoral was perhaps the wrong word what i mean is not in the category of moral action rather than 'bad'. I personally do not believe in morality at all but that does not stop me from prefering an equal stake society. Ok so ill just tackle your hypothetical. First you changed diamonds for tomatoes so this is a different argument but anyway. I will take moral here in an economic sense to be fair or to a reasonable degree, equivical. Your situation what you describe is a sharing economy and that does not exist at present. In order for a sharing economy to exist you would have to universalise the doctrine or demarcate the sharing boundary and operate within that demarcation. This I would think would be unfair to those outwith the demarcation who are poor so then you would have to universalise the sharing economy. now here is where it gets tricky #stalin. Universalising a doctine designed on fairnes does as the right liberal wankers always state, an act of will over an innocently immoral being. like getting your dog not to eat a snack by shouting at it, its not the dogs fault. that act alone becomes immoral. ok I'm not saying we are dogs but in some circumstances we are all going to break rules...I would say that your example is two people existing in a bubble. I have known such bubbles and they are bubbles. self sufficient communites would not cope with population levels like that of new york (they can barely make it past 20). so bubbles are usually created by highly educated people who use the capitalist system to create their bubble. this is not moral, moral would be fair or exactly equivical. Now as an anarchist I believe that although the taking of ownership can never be fair or equivical, I can think that It can be so scrutinised that people can behave properly and thus creating an equal stake society. whats your take?

yeah thats fair, wishful but fair.

i thought you were calling me a joke. anyway, there is no moral obligation to check if its ethically sourced, because in a capitalist society all activity is immoral. theres nothing wrong with it persay but just that morality has nothing to do with it. in a sharing economy all actions are moral hense the term share. but, if the owner was to have saved his money working for a non-profit its slightly different. but not exactly because for him to afford anything more than his basic needs, such as a diamond ring he would have to have been paid a wage that provided him with extra. which is a wage based on capitalist economics. if he worked in a non-profit that paid his exact wages and the guy starved himself over the course of 10 years in order to afford the ring, he would still be behaving immorally, because the ring would have to be of moral equivalency, meaning that he would have to reimburse the community for which the diamond came from (how can you evaluate that?). but hey why does that community have ownership over a crystal that took so long to create? what about the future community? there is no way to morally assess capitalistic activity, therefore it is immoral. and so the guy has no moral obligation within that system. he may only have a legal obligation, which in this case he does not. Although he does not have a contract for the ring and so does not own it, he can sell the ring legally and keep the money because contract is not based on morality, it works technically for the benefit of ease of enforcement. buyer beware! because the buyer would not have ownership either so if the train guy found him and could evidence ownership hed have to give the ring back and have no easy legal recourse to the money he lost.

the diamond was the result of capatilist activity, if ownership was derived from a sharing economy then there would be a moral obligation. taking the ring is no different from any acts leading up to him having it. If you think any different, please dont just say some vague thing then add a smiley. tell me the point where the economic activity created a moral obligation.

the economic activity involved in buying the ring was in no way morally different to you keeping it.