31–40 of 61 posts
The most interesting thing, to me, is that if you abandon materialism, what does it say about Consciousness? Consciousness can't come from material if it doesn't really exist. So is material "created" by Consciousness?
The most interesting thing, to me, is that if you abandon materialism, what does it say about Consciousness? Consciousness can't come from material if it doesn't really exist. So is material "created" by Consciousness?
I can only see the introduction, but it already shows some confused thinking. Whether something exists, and whether you call it X only because there are humans who call it X, those are two different things. On a planet without humans, stones exists, but no one is there to call them "stones". So they don't really exist, is that what the article is trying to tell me? Also, the stones do not exist, because only atoms ex…
This has little to do with humans. The photon is irreducible yet is our (anyone's) smallest investigative tool.
Would you ever modify the meaning of exits in this context? The planet with rocks could be traveled to by something physical. In QM, the causal relation is broken due to measurement by any physical object we know of, down to fundamental particles.
If there is no physical setup -> it does not exist. Right?
Or maybe Popper is 100% wrong?
I can only see the introduction, but it already shows some confused thinking. Whether something exists, and whether you call it X only because there are humans who call it X, those are two different things. On a planet without humans, stones exists, but no one is there to call them "stones". So they don't really exist, is that what the article is trying to tell me? Also, the stones do not exist, because only atoms ex…
Way back in 1781 Immanuel Kant discussed this (without considering quantum implications, obviously) in "Critique of Pure Reason". He coined the term "noumenon" to describe a thing as it is, not as it is perceived.
(Kantian noumena) of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects. The article, as it appears, all relations, including those between nonhumans, distort their related objects in the same basic manner as human consciousness and exist on an equal footing with one another.
The most interesting thing, to me, is that if you abandon materialism, what does it say about Consciousness? Consciousness can't come from material if it doesn't really exist. So is material "created" by Consciousness?
I can only see the introduction, but it already shows some confused thinking. Whether something exists, and whether you call it X only because there are humans who call it X, those are two different things. On a planet without humans, stones exists, but no one is there to call them "stones". So they don't really exist, is that what the article is trying to tell me? Also, the stones do not exist, because only atoms ex…
This is not run-of-the-mill ontological reductionism; this is a rejection of ontological realism, which nearly everyone takes for granted (including you, from the sound of it), but many philosophers do not.
The connection between ontological anti-realism and relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli's brainchild) is pretty straightforward. I think Rovelli is arguing that the quantum measurement problem is only a problem if we assert things ontologically, in terms of what's exactly here and there, rather than an expression of a relation between the measuring device and the system.
The most interesting thing, to me, is that if you abandon materialism, what does it say about Consciousness? Consciousness can't come from material if it doesn't really exist. So is material "created" by Consciousness?