Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tamminen]

Halc: Nothing more complicated than a simple statement that a thing is where the thing is.

Not so simple a statement; who determines where a thing is or even that it is?

Right.

1. The worldline of my pen can only be defined by me or a community of subjects in relation to some spatiotemporal coordinate system which can also be defined only by subjects. Now my pen has a succession of spatiotemporal locations on that worldline, each somewhere "there" seen from my presence "here" and "now".

2. If my pen were conscious, it would be "here" and "now" at each of its locations, and those "heres" and "nows" would be different from my "here" and "now". It would be an other for me. My pen is not an other. It is my instrument. Another's presence is like my yesterday's presence if my personal continuity is ignored.

So it is impossible to eliminate the subject's presence, also called consciousness, from our view of reality, if that view wants to be something more than an abstraction.

[Gertie]

Not so simple a statement; who determines where a thing is or even that it is?

Right.

1. The worldline of my pen can only be defined by me or a community of subjects in relation to some spatiotemporal coordinate system which can also be defined only by subjects. Now my pen has a succession of spatiotemporal locations on that worldline, each somewhere "there" seen from my presence "here" and "now".

2. If my pen were conscious, it would be "here" and "now" at each of its locations, and those "heres" and "nows" would be different from my "here" and "now". It would be an other for me. My pen is not an other. It is my instrument. Another's presence is like my yesterday's presence if my personal continuity is ignored.

So it is impossible to eliminate the subject's presence, also called consciousness, from our view of reality, if that view wants to be something more than an abstraction.

Either we accept we can (roughly, imperfectly) know objective facts about the world, or we don't.

If we don't, then solipsism.

If we do accept we can know (roughly, imperfectly) objective facts about the world, through comparing notes, then we can start constructing a (rough, imperfect) shared model of the world which exists independently of each of our individual (rough, imperfect) observations.

I can point to a green apple, you can say yes you see it too, and we can agree that green apple apple exists independently of each of our independent subjective experience of seeing it.

If you don't accept that, then fine, you're advocating that nothing can be known but your own direct personal experience.

If you do accept that you and I can point at something and agree we see something we call a green apple, then you're accepting there is an objective reality (we can both roughly, imperfectly) perceive beyond our own direct subject experience.

It's an either/or state of ontological fact.

What you can't do, is say that green apple only objectively exists if there's someone to experience seeing it, but also say it objectively exists regardless of it being experienced by a Subject. And you appear to be dudging the two mutually exclusive facts of the matter.

So either the universe objectively existed (without being observed by a Subject) before Subjects evolved, or it didn;t.

If you claim it didn't, but it still somehow Subjects evolved from this non-existent universe, then you need to explain how this apparent paradox can be true. Just the same as if the green apple isn't observed by an experiencing Subject, it doesn't exist, until it is observed.

[Tamminen]

Right.

1. The worldline of my pen can only be defined by me or a community of subjects in relation to some spatiotemporal coordinate system which can also be defined only by subjects. Now my pen has a succession of spatiotemporal locations on that worldline, each somewhere "there" seen from my presence "here" and "now".

2. If my pen were conscious, it would be "here" and "now" at each of its locations, and those "heres" and "nows" would be different from my "here" and "now". It would be an other for me. My pen is not an other. It is my instrument. Another's presence is like my yesterday's presence if my personal continuity is ignored.

So it is impossible to eliminate the subject's presence, also called consciousness, from our view of reality, if that view wants to be something more than an abstraction.

Either we accept we can (roughly, imperfectly) know objective facts about the world, or we don't.

If we don't, then solipsism.

If we do accept we can know (roughly, imperfectly) objective facts about the world, through comparing notes, then we can start constructing a (rough, imperfect) shared model of the world which exists independently of each of our individual (rough, imperfect) observations.

I can point to a green apple, you can say yes you see it too, and we can agree that green apple apple exists independently of each of our independent subjective experience of seeing it.

If you don't accept that, then fine, you're advocating that nothing can be known but your own direct personal experience.

If you do accept that you and I can point at something and agree we see something we call a green apple, then you're accepting there is an objective reality (we can both roughly, imperfectly) perceive beyond our own direct subject experience.

It's an either/or state of ontological fact.

What you can't do, is say that green apple only objectively exists if there's someone to experience seeing it, but also say it objectively exists regardless of it being experienced by a Subject. And you appear to be dudging the two mutually exclusive facts of the matter.

So either the universe objectively existed (without being observed by a Subject) before Subjects evolved, or it didn;t.

If you claim it didn't, but it still somehow Subjects evolved from this non-existent universe, then you need to explain how this apparent paradox can be true. Just the same as if the green apple isn't observed by an experiencing Subject, it doesn't exist, until it is observed.

A good summary.

My answer is that the universe objectively existed before there were subjects, but the universe exists and has always existed in relation to the subjects there are, whenever those subjects happen to live. Without subjects there can be no universe. Without subjects there can be nothing. The universe is a spatiotemporal totality. At least I see it that way. Can you really imagine a universe without subjects if you think about it deeper than in the usual, superficial way?

The being of objects depends on the being of subjects, although not on the being of any individual subject. The concept of an object implies a relation which is not only epistemological but also ontological.

[Tamminen]

The universe is a spatiotemporal totality.

This is perhaps difficult to accept, because it seems to presuppose some kind of cosmic teleology, but in fact there need not be any more teleology than in a human organism, which is not conscious in its early development.

[Gertie]

My answer is that the universe objectively existed before there were subjects, but the universe exists and has always existed in relation to the subjects there are, whenever those subjects happen to live. Without subjects there can be no universe. Without subjects there can be nothing.

There's an obvious contradiction in claiming :

the universe of 'stuff' existed [in time] before Subjects who experienced it -

and the claim that :

Without subjects [to experience it] there can be no universe.

This is clearly a paradox, right, the claims appear to be mutually exclusive.

I'm not getting your explanation for how both claims can be true. Can you spell it out in straightforward terms?

[Halc]

A rock makes a fine subject, as does a unicorn.

So you think rocks and unicorns have experiences? Or is experiencing something else?

There is no universe in itself, independent of subjects. I said I agreed with that. A rock (a rock event to be specific) is such a subject, defining a reality/world/universe with which it must interact, a one-way relationship. Rock defines universe, but universe does not define rock. In this sense, it is no different than humans. As for 'experience' (a word I did not use), if you think non-human things have no experience, then I suppose a unicorn would not by that definition, but a unicorn, like the rock, interacts with and defines its world in that subject-world relationship.

A subject indeed has a kind of a solipsistic relationship to the world, but what I am saying is that if there is no single subject in the universe, has never been and will never be, there is no sense and no justification in saying that there is a universe at all.

I thought you said there was no universe at all, at least independent of subjects. So I'm not trying to justify that 'there is a universe at all'. There are indeed multiple subjects, and I didn't say there were not. But they seem to define different worlds and we share only the overlapping parts of those worlds. I picked a unicorn example because there is less overlap with the world it would define.

Again, I have no problem with that. But the next part talks about non-conscious objects, which in my view are things that don't relate to any other thing. Can't really think of an example.

So you think a rock is a conscious subject? Or a non-conscious subject? What are non-conscious objects then?

Depends on one's definition of conscious. I have a very loose definition (S is conscious of W if S can take a measurement of W). A non-conscious thing can not take a measurement of anything. Perhaps the big bang is such a thing, if it is an actual singularity.

So you use the word 'presence' in the objective sense, which from my perspective looks a bit confusing. At least it is something totally different from what I mean by it. I guess you do not admit that there is a difference.

Sure there is a difference. There were 6 definitions that I got from the dictionary, and you seem to be using the last one instead of the first. That's just my take. My take is just a tautology: A thing is not absent from where it is located.

Halc: Nothing more complicated than a simple statement that a thing is where the thing is.

Not so simple a statement; who determines where a thing is or even that it is?

I didn't mention that there needed to be somebody to determine a location. A rock determines the location of things relative to itself, just like we do. We have no objective location, even in a view that posits such a thing (my view does not). Neither the coordinates of our solar system nor even the orientation of the axes even can be given without reference to some part of the world which we define. We are simply here, which isn't going to get our objective mail delivered. The big bang is a valid objective reference point, but we don't exist in relation to that. No coordinates from there will suffice.

[Wayne92587]

"Now is the Time, and the Place is Here and Now!

Everything that exists is subject to the relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time.

Here and Now," Now" is the Time, is simply terminology used to make reference to the here and now, the specific Time and Location of a specific Entity relative to specific moment, point, in Space-Time.

Everything that exists has a moment in Time, point, in Space.

Existence is subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, to the Reality of the moment, The" Here and Now".

The" Here and Now" is a reference to relativity of Time and Space.

[Wayne92587]

Here and now is used in reference to the Relativity of Time and Space, of Space-Time itself, not to any specific entity that exits.

[Tamminen]

My answer is that the universe objectively existed before there were subjects, but the universe exists and has always existed in relation to the subjects there are, whenever those subjects happen to live. Without subjects there can be no universe. Without subjects there can be nothing.

There's an obvious contradiction in claiming :

the universe of 'stuff' existed [in time] before Subjects who experienced it -

and the claim that :

Without subjects [to experience it] there can be no universe.

This is clearly a paradox, right, the claims appear to be mutually exclusive.

I'm not getting your explanation for how both claims can be true. Can you spell it out in straightforward terms?

You did not get my idea of the holistic or "organism-like" universe. The subjects of the universe are also in relation to the subjectless past of the universe like I am in relation to my unconscious past. I admit that this idea may sound a bit strange, but think of it like the past of the universe in a way only gets its existence with conscious beings in the future because it evolves for the being of those conscious beings. This is what I mean when I say that the universe is a totality. And because this totality necessarily contains subjects, it necessarily exists as a totality, including its subjectless past. I am not sure if I can explain this clearly enough, but I hope some day I'll find better words.

However, I find this view both consistent and obvious. It is something like Wittgenstein's remark about dying: the world does not change, it only ceases to exist. So there are two kinds of possible nonexistence of the world: destroying the world and destroying the subject.

[Tamminen]

A thing is not absent from where it is located.

No, but my pen's relation to me is not the same kind of relation as my relation to my pen. My finger's relation to my pen is the same kind of relation as my pen's relation to me. There is a fundamental difference between subjective and objective relations.

[Wayne92587]

Reality does not need our consciousness in order to exist.
A Reality exists whether or not we are conscious of its existence.

Please!

[Wayne92587]

The subject of the Here and Now, is not used in reference to any specific Entity, subject.

The Here and Now marks the moment, the point, in which Time and Space become Relative, the moment, the Point in which something exists.

Now is the Time, the Place is Here.

[Tamminen]

Reality does not need our consciousness in order to exist.
A Reality exists whether or not we are conscious of its existence.

The Here and Now marks the moment, the point, in which Time and Space become Relative, the moment, the Point in which something exists.

Now is the Time, the Place is Here.

Two interesting remarks, but they seem to contradict each other. The "here and now", or presence, is exactly what we mean by consciousness, and if that presence is removed from the whole universe, there is no justification of saying that the universe exists. See my reply to Gertie.

I know this is not as simple as it looks at first sight.

[Tamminen]

...the holistic or "organism-like" universe

To use a simplified metaphor: the universe can be thought of as a "thing" with consciousness as its essential property. Therefore the universe cannot be thought of as without consciousness and it cannot exist without consciousness. The being of consciousness is the ontological precondition of existence in general.

Only to clarify the hypothesis that I am suggesting. Whether it is true is another question.

[ThomasHobbes]

...the holistic or "organism-like" universe

To use a simplified metaphor: the universe can be thought of as a "thing" with consciousness as its essential property. Therefore the universe cannot be thought of as without consciousness and it cannot exist without consciousness. The being of consciousness is the ontological precondition of existence in general.

Only to clarify the hypothesis that I am suggesting. Whether it is true is another question.

You cannot conclude facts from a fantasy.