If a tree falls and no one is around...

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see it as fairly insignificant on a grand scale *unless* consciousness becomes more common in the universe over time. it might be an interesting start.

I'm not sure why this particular type of self-reference is that significant.

That is an opinion in you. I demand evidence. You know the game. People who claim X is Y without evidence are a lot of negative words.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How can man not give significance to his own existence?

Apart from In a harmful way, mans existence seems to be irrelevant to the universe.
The rest of the natural world on earth would have been better off without us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Apart from In a harmful way, mans existence seems to be irrelevant to the universe.

As far as I can tell you are in the universe and a part of the universe and not outside it. As for relevance to the universe that is only relevant if the universe is conscious.

The rest of the natural world on earth would have been better off without us.

How do you know that? You seem to be using a human understanding of better or do you know better in a strong objective sense?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Apart from In a harmful way, mans existence seems to be irrelevant to the universe.
The rest of the natural world on earth would have been better off without us.

But you are human, are you not? Do you place no value on humanity?

 

[Revoltingest]

....but in one sense of the word there is not sound, because there is no human present.

Conducted any experiments to show there's
no sound unless a human hears it?
I'm skeptical because lesser animals will hear
the sound, eg, rats, snakes, alligators, lawyers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you are human, are you not? Do you place no value on humanity?

Well, objectivity is subjectively better to some people, but they forget that better is subjective.

 

[Polymath257]

That is an opinion in you. I demand evidence. You know the game. People who claim X is Y without evidence are a lot of negative words.

Well, first define what it takes to be significant on a cosmic scale, and then we can see whether our consciousness qualifies.

 

[Polymath257]

Now define something without that requiring a human.
So here is your trick used on you. I define you as worthless therefore it is fact, because I define what is useful.
As long as you don't understand that all your definitions require a human and that defining X is Y doesn't necessarily make it a fact that X is Y, we will play this game.

They only 'require a human' in the trivial sense that I am a human and the one doing it.

Yes, a definition that the word X means Y *does* mean that X is Y is true.

So sorry, but I know you can take it. Learn the limitations of your big beautiful brain or I will continue to point it out.

I am quite aware of human limitations.

So here it is. There are no things in themselves in practice, because you are in the world and all you know is in relationship to you.

So what? Why should I regard myself as that significant?

So, yes, all *I* know is because of information *I* get and is in relation to *me*. So what? That only says something about how I relate to the larger reality. But I do not define that reality.

So if you read the results on an instrument, that requires that you read the results and some human has made it and calibrated it to a standard.

Again, so what? If dogs get intelligence and can calibrate machines, does that mean it is all about dogs?

Objective is the relationship between human cognition and something not human cognition, because otherwise you can't know that it is objective as a relationship.

Humans are just one species on this small planet. Why would we be the ones to define meaning for the whole?

If there is another intelligent race, does everything still only depend on human cognition? Or is it about cognition in general, no matter what the origin?

Phenomenon: plural phenomena : an observable fact or event.
What does those words require? It is that simple. When you claim what matters however you do it in practice, it is only a fact, because it matters to you. That is so for all humans, who have the cognition to do so.

Yes, questions of values are subjective opinions. What 'matters' is a question of values.

And, again, why only humans? Why not dogs and cats? They certainly consider some things to be important. How about lions? And maybe plants determine some things more relevant than others.

It seems to me that you are giving way too much weight to human cognition simply because we are human.

 

[Polymath257]

But if we don't know, we can't use truth. God and truth are the same in that you can't point to them. They are complex abstracts in human brains.

We can use confidence level. And because of testing and observation, we can have more confidence in some ideas than others.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Conducted any experiments to show there's
no sound unless a human hears it?
I'm skeptical because lesser animals will hear
the sound, eg, rats, snakes, alligators, lawyers.

How would you go about setting up an experiment with no human input?

 

[Revoltingest]

If there really is a god, this thread is making it cry.

 

[Revoltingest]

How would you go about setting up an experiment with no human input?

We already have biologists setting up
recording equipment to monitor animals
remotely, ie, no humans around.
Play the sound of a tree falling to see
if animals react to it.
The only human input is putting the
equipment in place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Conducted any experiments to show there's
no sound unless a human hears it?
I'm skeptical because lesser animals will hear
the sound, eg, rats, snakes, alligators, lawyers.

Well, that is all biology. And then there is physics. The 2 parts to sound.

 

[Polymath257]

On reflection, ‘significant’ may not be the best choice of words. Astonishing doesn’t really do it either, and awesome has been devalued lately. So I’d probably go with miraculous, though I doubt that’s a word you’d choose yourself.

Yes, the universe is amazeballs. At least, it is to us humans. But that is an evaluation by humans for human purposes. it says nothing about the universe, really; only something about us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that is all biology. And then there is physics. The 2 parts to sound.

Biology is a subset of physics.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, the universe is amazeballs. At least, it is to us humans. But that is an evaluation by humans for human purposes. it says nothing about the universe, really; only something about us.

Well the “tree falling in the woods” thought experiment is intended to ask questions about us, and how we see the world. Specifically, it’s designed to get us thinking about the role consciousness and perception play, in framing our experience of reality. And how the alchemist mind interprets symbols, and creates for itself a working model of the world external to the observer (to paraphrase Arthur Stanley Eddington).

Then perhaps consider this; whilst reading this thread, I have in my mind’s eye, an image of a tree falling in a forest. Does that tree make a sound? And in what way is it any less real than the hypothetical tree in our imaginary thought experiment? To me both, trees are equally real, or equally imaginary. And even if I were in a forest right now, instead of at a railway station, the tree in front of me would still be an approximation in my consciousness, constructed from sensory data.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We already have biologists setting up
recording equipment to monitor animals
remotely, ie, no humans around.
Play the sound of a tree falling to see
if animals react to it.
The only human input is putting the
equipment in place.

You literally just confirmed the impossibility of constructing an experiment without human input.

I generally deplore the use of the word literally for rhetorical emphasis, but on this occasion I consider it appropriate.

 

[Revoltingest]

You literally just confirmed the impossibility of constructing an experiment without human input.

How so?
When the experiment is conducted,
no human interacts with the animals.

I generally deplore the use of the word literally for rhetorical emphasis, but on this occasion I consider it appropriate.

You're still abusing by misusing the word.

Hey, when I don't see you posting,
do you cease to exist?

 

[Polymath257]

Well the “tree falling in the woods” thought experiment is intended to ask questions about us, and how we see the world. Specifically, it’s designed to get us thinking about the role consciousness and perception play, in framing our experience of reality. And how the alchemist mind interprets symbols, and creates for itself a working model of the world external to the observer (to paraphrase Arthur Stanley Eddington).

Well, that is *one* interpretation, but it is far from being the only use of this thought experiment.

It is also about how words can be ambiguous and to get answers we need to ask precise questions. The word 'sound' is ambiguous, having both a physical meaning and a perceptual meaning.

Then perhaps consider this; whilst reading this thread, I have in my mind’s eye, an image of a tree falling in a forest. Does that tree make a sound?

No. No pressure waves have been made in this thought experiment.

And, for me, no perception of sound is experienced either. Nor, for that matter, a visual perception of a tree.

And in what way is it any less real than the hypothetical tree in our imaginary thought experiment? To me both, trees are equally real, or equally imaginary.

Oh, I strongly disagree. The one in my imagination is imaginary (sort of the origin of the words). A real tree falling in a real forest is a very different thing.

And even if I were in a forest right now, instead of at a railway station, the tree in front of me would still be an approximation in my consciousness, constructed from sensory data.

No, the tree in front of you is NOT the same as the model of it in your mind. The model is an approximation (probably a poor one) of the real tree. Don't confuse the picture with the subject of picture.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, that is all biology. And then there is physics. The 2 parts to sound.

Um, no. The biology is a part of the physics. That is different than the perception.