3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 9:35 am
T2!
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. In reading it, I was inspired by a few things (you hinted or suggested) hence a few takeaway's or key concepts:
1. Unity of Opposites: subject-object dynamic
2. Logical Necessity: the causes of a some-thing's existence is derived from within itself.
3. Metaphysical: subjective idealism
4. Unperceived Existence (aka: if a tree falls in the forest: both yourself and Gertie postulated...)
5 Quantum Observer effect & Non-locality.
6. Anthropic Principle
Gosh, which one shall we tackle first? Well just as a broad brushing of your first point, I agree that the subject-object dichotomy makes better sense in the spirit of Unity but, I also think Schop was referring to the primacy of consciousness (primarily the Will to wonder, have meaning, purpose and so on) as the metaphysical necessity. Much like synthetic a priori knowledge, that are fixed, innate or intrinsic qualities of consciousness, (a necessary part of what causes one to wonder about causes and effects or otherwise why things happen) to begin with, just is. Existentially, it makes contextual sense from the standpoint of one's essence being unknown, as we find ourselves existing without a 'concrete' cause. So we are left with asking questions and pursuing things like empirical science, cognitive science, religion and so on to figure it all out. But, we depend on our intrinsic sense of wonder first, to effect advancement of a theory, or otherwise to find a reasons for causes/effects.
To this end, (and I'll try to answer your last question) Subjective Idealism is very appealing when one wants to parse whether things exist or not, as well as the questions of what could lie beyond perception (both you and Gertie touched on that). All that said, and if we want to parse the causes of consciousness (Must the universe contain consciousness), we can first look at the effects of consciousness (from the infamous tree in the forest riddle):
Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness? – e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[9] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[9] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today, meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, simply because it could have been heard.
The answer to this question depends on the definition of sound. We can define sound as our perception of air vibrations. Therefore, sound does not exist if we do not hear it. When a tree falls, the motion disturbs the air and sends off air waves. This physical phenomenon, which can be measured by instruments other than our ears, exists regardless of human perception (seeing or hearing) of it. Putting together, although the tree falling on the island sends off air waves, it does not produce sound if no human is within the distance where the air waves are strong enough for a human to perceive them. However, if we define sound as the waves themselves, then sound would be produced. /* The possibility of unperceived existence */ We shall not use one word to define two different things. If we define sound as waves, what word shall we use to describe the "sound" we hear? Here, we are talking about two different things. For a stone, a stone only senses air waves. Sound is meaningless to stone. Because stones cannot convert air waves into sound. Of course we shall use sound as the thing we hear. Then the waves between the vibration source and our ears, we shall not also use the same word “sound”. It is just air waves. This is a physics argument, not philosophy argument.
What is the difference between what something is, and how it appears? – e.g., "sound is the variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave"
Perhaps the most important topic the riddle offers is the division between perception of an object and how an object really is. If a tree exists outside of perception, then there is no way for us to know that the tree exists. So then, what do we mean by 'existence'; what is the difference between perception and reality? Also, people may also say, if the tree exists outside of perception (as common sense would dictate), then it will produce sound waves. However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur. So then, how is it known that 'sound as it is mechanically understood' will occur if that sound is not perceived?
Much of that speaks to your concern about what is non-sensical about something for which we assume we might know about. The example of perceiving sound means that a consciousness is required to translate sound waves or process information into actual sound. Conversely, some argue that the physical sound waves would still exist (which in theory is correct) it's just that no-one would hear it. But that too is non-sensical because consciousness (epistemology) is required or logically necessary (metaphysically necessary) to apperceive the understanding of the physic's of sound waves to begin with. In that sense, we are left with Subjective Idealism as primacy in, at the very least, apperception and Being.
But let's take different tact. As the foregoing stone example illustrates, sound is a different kind of language to a stone. In like manner, stones and air vibrations/waves correspond to the physical. Sound does not exclusively correspond to the physical and is arguably more metaphysical in its effects on humans (actually neither does understanding of sound waves themselves). As such, consciousness itself is both physical and metaphysical. Are those analogies suggesting that a different language is needed to understand the origins (the 'formula') that causes conscious existence in the universe? (And the perception of other worlds/trees falling without one's understanding of them falling?) It certainly could be that a different set of rules could apply... . Maybe we are not smart enough to understand consciousness(?). But it's fun trying...!!
The bullet-point concepts that are relative having a physical effects coming from a metaphysical language of sorts:
The sound analogy:
1. Physics-->sound waves--->mathematics-->metaphysical...
2. Perception--->consciousness--> physical--> metaphysical...
Both 1 & 2 involves concepts relating to consciousness to understand. Maybe another kind of another anthropic feedback loop of sorts... .
Hi MP, thanks for your detailed reply and sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, a broad topic, but in the interest of keeping things concise, I’ll just share a couple of thoughts on some of your points for now, but if you’d like to follow or develop any of these further I’m happy to do so.
I I think I understand what you’re getting at here – that there is something that ‘precedes’ or forms the basis for all experience, that goes beyond the subject-object dichotomy. I tend to subscribe to the approach Robert Pirsig takes with his Metaphysics of Quality and the idea that Quality, or Value, underlies the subject-object distinction and essentially forms a sort of ground of being from which both subject and object emerge. I’m not very well versed in Schopenhauer’s thought, but I suspect he is describing a very similar thing with his ‘Will’. I’m not sure that I would equate consciousness with either of these things though. (To be honest, I find ‘consciousness’ to be a rather nebulous and ill-defined term so I usually try to avoid it.)
Regarding the familiar ‘tree in the forest’ question, yes, we can derive a different answer by changing the definition of sound. Doing so dodges the central question here, though. Definitions, in my estimation, are in essence just premises and we can’t prove premises, we can only examine them and their consequences, and choose to accept them and make use of them or not.
I’ll stress again what I said in the earlier post – that it’s important to distinguish between the individual consciousness or perception of an object and collective consciousness. The tree can exist outside of my perception, that part is clear – other people can see it or hear, and yes, even the stones can be affected by it. So from an individual point of view, it’s a useful premise to assume that the tree has existence independent of us because that has utility – it’s useful in our interactions with the world and the beings we encounter there. But can the tree exist outside of any and all perception or consciousness of it, past present of future? In what sense then does it exist? We can believe it does exist or that it
could exist, but can that belief itself give it existence?
In your exchange with
Gertie above you both touched on the idea of things existing in relationship, and I agree it makes sense to talk in these terms. When we perceive something or are conscious of something, a relationship with it is established - it is that relationship that gives both subject and object their existence. To assert that something that can exist outside of any relationship with anything else – an object that never has been and never will enter into relationship of any kind with any object or being - is one that is essentially severed from our own universe, cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way except as an object in our imagination. You’re probably aware that this idea can be found in Buddhist philosophy - that no object has ‘intrinsic existence’; that things exist only in their relationship to other things. The objective universe exists in relationship to the conscious, perceiving, subject, but its
ultimate nature is ‘empty’. (Incidentally, since you’ve touched on physics here, Italian Physicist Carlo Rovelli also explores this idea, and the influence that Buddhist philosophy has had on his scientific work, in his book ‘Helgoland’, which I highly recommend, and makes what I think is a very compelling argument that this idea is compatible with physics, that material objects are ultimately nothing more than ‘nodes’ in relationships – that it is the relationship that is meaningful, not the nature of the object itself.)
But I'll just add in closing that I think that ideas such as 'cause and effect', 'emergence', 'necessity', 'dependence' and so forth can take us down the wrong path in thinking about questions about consciousness and being because the terms in language have grown out of the models that we have already built out of countless experiences and are thus bound to the suppositions that those models contain. In other words, we have to keep in mind that the the phenomena involving matter in space and time, and even the passage and direction of time itself, are only sensible in terms of sequences of observations and human memories thereof, so to think in these terms is to be thinking within the framework of the subject-object metaphysics that we are trying to break free of and get beyond.
I'm not sure I understand your last question where you've said here:
I would like some clarification on your question. You said: ..."how can consciousness be said to be both the observer and the observed?"
Are you referring to things that transcend LEM and/or the theoretical abilities to look objectively outside/beyond the Block Universe?
But perhaps you can elaborate for me and we can take it from there if it's still of interest.
- By Bethel Saint Bright
- By Sy Borg