I am an optical landscape painter. The world does not exist unless you are in it to give it meaning. Otherwise it has no purpose other than to be what it is without us. I think about this every single day, and my work is a reflection of this conundrum.
tapestryofsound
tapestryofsound
Strictly speaking that is the only purpose anything has unless we made it to fulfil a given purpose or need.
Careful now... so you dont put ideas into someones head. What if they decide they want proof, and not knowing quantum physics starts to measure 😱
Consciousness is a function of living biological brains. Other than that, nobody knows how it actually arises. An explanation has to explain how sensory perceptions arise out of neuronal activity. What is known is consciousness requires extensive neuronal synchrony which is usually manifested as 40Hz brain waves.
I am deeply impressed with the designer of the universe; I am confident I couldnt have done anywhere near such a good job.
R. Buckminster Fuller
R. Buckminster Fuller
Conscience, let alone conscious awareness, can not exist on its own (unless you believe in God or something, but then we are leaving the Physical World).
So the Universe, the Physical reality MUST precede conscience.
Won´t argue by how long, but the sequence is that: first physical reality, then Conscience.
And even so, the second is not needed at all for the first one to exist.
Or see it from another point: we have proof enough that the Universe has existed for billions of years, while Life, let alone Conscience, has existed for a tiny fraction of that.
How did the first exist in absence of the second?
Easy,the second is not needed.
Last edited:
Quantum probability reduces to relativistic “reality” through diffusion. I don’t think an observer is required.
Consciousness is an invention created by a specie that is known as "human". Surely the earth has been around for 4 billion years and a good chunk of that was without humans. Oh, and don't call me Surely.
To put an optimistic view on it (in my own words and view):
We are all insignificant, rocks of any and all kinds will outlive us all.
We may crush mountains to build, but the wind and rain will tear it all down.
We will be long forgotten, when the remaining sediments are pressed into new mountains.
We are all insignificant, rocks of any and all kinds will outlive us all.
We may crush mountains to build, but the wind and rain will tear it all down.
We will be long forgotten, when the remaining sediments are pressed into new mountains.
This is a metaphysical(it is formed as such, I do not know if that was posters attention though) question and I will provide a metaphysical answer.
To put it as short as possible.
Kant coined the concept of the Thing-in-itself. The problem is, we have no access to the thing-in-itself. We have no ability to experience things without our consciousness. So the answer to your question is no.
To put it as short as possible.
Kant coined the concept of the Thing-in-itself. The problem is, we have no access to the thing-in-itself. We have no ability to experience things without our consciousness. So the answer to your question is no.
I've recently (re-) read most of Dawkins and some of Dennett. With some regrets, I currently subscribe to the idea(s) that the universe is 13 billion years old +/-, that evolution is true, that life is a huge cosmic accident, and so are we 🙁 If you assume that the universe is purely physical, that natural law explains all, that leaves little to no room for the supernatural ( = God or insert your favorite deity here). I'm assuming that "existence preceeds essence" (said someone); most objects in the universe have existed long before I did, exist now independent of my feeble intellect, and I suppose will exist long after I'm dead.
There is a big difference between access to physical things (understood as knowledge of these things, a matter of epistemology) and the existence of physical things (indeed a metaphysical problem).
The existence of the noumena (the things in themselves) is not dependent on consciousness. Furthermore, their existence is a necessary condition for the existence of phenomena. Most commentators follow the two-objects school of interpretation for which: "Things in themselves, on this interpretation, are absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if no human beings were around to perceive them." (from SEP, section 3.1)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.