"esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived")

Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
"esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived")

"esse est percipi" – "to be is to be perceived"

 

This is the central statement of George Berkeley’s idealism.

 

Would the universe exist if there were no minds to perceive its existence?

 

I will take George Berkeley’s stance that the universe could not exist without minds to perceive its existence.

 

Here is a reason why I take this stance: What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive its existence? Here is the answer: It would not be any size, because the notion of size comes from a perceiving mind. Since the universe without minds to perceive it would not be any particular size, it therefore would not exist i.e. it would possess no size.

 

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

 

Therefore Berkeley’s idealism is true, and the opposing positions of naturalism and physicalism are false. Naturalism and physicalism are irrational.

 


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
But if no one existed, then neither would observational instruments, and neither would the universe.

 

Ooh, but inanimate objects can serve as observational instruments without humans creating them.  Sand with a hoof print works as an example.  The impression in the sand is an 'observation' of the hoof that stepped on it.  No humans required to show that at some point something with a hoof stepped in the sand.

 

Now, the knowledge of said event requires a human, but the event itself does not.  Likewise, knowledge of the universe requires a mind (your mind), but its existence does not.

 

The hoof print in the sand would not exist if there were no minds to perceive it. ‘Print’ and ‘hoof’ and ‘sand’ are all ideas, which we project upon the universe to interpret what the universe means. If there are no minds to perceive events, then there are no events, because an ‘event’ is an interpretation by a mind or minds.

Idealist


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

 

 

I fail to see how an idealistic philosophical position is the least bit useful in understanding reality.  Will you deny the advancements brought upon by science, discovered and created from the supposed wrong position?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:The

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

The hoof print in the sand would not exist if there were no minds to perceive it. ‘Print’ and ‘hoof’ and ‘sand’ are all ideas, which we project upon the universe to interpret what the universe means. If there are no minds to perceive events, then there are no events, because an ‘event’ is an interpretation by a mind or minds.

 

You have just admitted that there is something that exists external to the mind.  Whether or not you want to call it the universe or reality is irrelevant.  We can't project ideas onto nothingness.  We can't perceive nothing.  There is SOMETHING external to be perceived.  And here, even you refer to it as the universe.


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

 

I fail to see how an idealistic philosophical position is the least bit useful in understanding reality.  Will you deny the advancements brought upon by science, discovered and created from the supposed wrong position?

 

But idealism is more compatible with science than realism/materialism. Idealism is open to the advancement of knowledge, but realism/materialism is closed to the advancement of knowledge. That’s because from the perspective of realism/materialism, the universe exists as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Idealism maintains the opposite; that the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know.

Idealist


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
The hoof print in the sand would not exist if there were no minds to perceive it. ‘Print’ and ‘hoof’ and ‘sand’ are all ideas, which we project upon the universe to interpret what the universe means. If there are no minds to perceive events, then there are no events, because an ‘event’ is an interpretation by a mind or minds.

 

You have just admitted that there is something that exists external to the mind.  Whether or not you want to call it the universe or reality is irrelevant.  We can't project ideas onto nothingness.  We can't perceive nothing.  There is SOMETHING external to be perceived.  And here, even you refer to it as the universe.

 

I haven’t admitted that the universe is external to the mind, or that it is ‘nothingness’. Idealism and materialism/realism concern the nature of reality, rather than its existence. Idealism does not deny the existence of the universe. It just asserts that the universe is our perception of it i.e. our perception and the objects of our perception are one and the same thing. Advancement of scientific knowledge proves that this is true.

Idealist


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

 

I fail to see how an idealistic philosophical position is the least bit useful in understanding reality.  Will you deny the advancements brought upon by science, discovered and created from the supposed wrong position?

 

But idealism is more compatible with science than realism/materialism. Idealism is open to the advancement of knowledge, but realism/materialism is closed to the advancement of knowledge. That’s because from the perspective of realism/materialism, the universe exists as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Idealism maintains the opposite; that the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know.

Apart from the intrinsic absurdity and incoherence of Idealism, the assumption that things exist outside our mind/brain means that our knowledge of them is limited to what we can perceive AND measure about it. Our ability to design and construct ever more sophisticated and powerful instruments allows us to make continuing refinements in the accuracy of what we can know about the Universe, which is what allows us to gain ever improved understanding of it, which is what we mean by "the advancement of knowledge".

Our minds/brains are very finite things, and massively inadequate to containing all this is to know about the Universe.

You still have yet to show any justification for the core assumption of Idealism, you simply keep asserting it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You still have yet to show any justification for the core assumption of Idealism, you simply keep asserting it.

 

What you call “assertions” are logical arguments, using thought experiments. I answered you in post #50 in this thread, but you did not respond to my reasoned arguments there.

 

This was my response to you:

 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

 

What do I mean by “the brain is knowledge”?

 

I mean that there are different fields of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The brain is an idea or knowledge in the field of biology. The brain is a ‘theory’ about the mind in biology. Theory is knowledge.

 

Further, there is no evidence that knowledge exists in the brain. What do I mean by this? Well, can a neuroscientist discern the most advanced ideas in mathematics by observing the brain of the world’s most advanced mathematician? No, a neuroscientist cannot do that. Therefore, there is no evidence that mathematical knowledge exists within the brain.

Idealist


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:I

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

I haven’t admitted that the universe is external to the mind, or that it is ‘nothingness’. Idealism and materialism/realism concern the nature of reality, rather than its existence. Idealism does not deny the existence of the universe. It just asserts that the universe is our perception of it i.e. our perception and the objects of our perception are one and the same thing. Advancement of scientific knowledge proves that this is true.

 

 

The problem is that your position denies the existence of things that are not perceived.  Like a tree falling in a forest, your position would be unable to account for how the tree ended up on the forest floor, whereas a naturalistic perspective can.  We don't need to observe things for them to happen, they happen either way.  If I light a firecracker with a long fuse and then drive away, and there is no one around it to feel/see/hear it go off, does it?  Your position would assert there can be no knowledge of the outcome until it is observed, where we say that it either went off or it didn't.  Your position allows for events that aren't feasible, like the firecracker vanishing in thin air.  Materialists can eliminate the possibilities that are senseless because we assert the external existence of reality.  You can't say anything about the unobserved event.  We can, with reasonable assurance.  Consequently, our position allows for a greater understanding of reality, while yours is limited. 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You still have yet to show any justification for the core assumption of Idealism, you simply keep asserting it.

 

What you call “assertions” are logical arguments, using thought experiments. I answered you in post #50 in this thread, but you did not respond to my reasoned arguments there.

 

This was my response to you:

 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

 

What do I mean by “the brain is knowledge”?

 

I mean that there are different fields of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The brain is an idea or knowledge in the field of biology. The brain is a ‘theory’ about the mind in biology. Theory is knowledge.

 

Further, there is no evidence that knowledge exists in the brain. What do I mean by this? Well, can a neuroscientist discern the most advanced ideas in mathematics by observing the brain of the world’s most advanced mathematician? No, a neuroscientist cannot do that. Therefore, there is no evidence that mathematical knowledge exists within the brain.

 

In this case you are wrong.  Yes, the neuroscientist can observe mathematics in the brain - simple or complex.  I refer you to The Number Sense by Stanislas Dehaene who is a neuroscientist.  The book is about how they can map numerical computations in the brain using various techniques - getting more and more fine tuned as the technology progresses.  Also, his team has examined many case histories and many people who have epileptic seizures or who have strokes that damaged areas of the brain and caused specific mathematical problems.

No, we can not see the actual mathematical formulas derived.  But we can observe the specific areas of the brain that fire off for various numerical calculations.  There are number of brain areas involved.  Different areas for number recognition, number calculation, and logic problems.  These areas do not fire when reading, or remembering or other tasks.  So, yes, specific areas of the brain deal with reading numbers which are not the same areas as processing numbers.

You may say "the concept of Santa Claus exists."  I'll say sure, a lot of people have this concept.  But when you say, "because the concept exists, Santa must exist in reality", almost of the people with the concept are going to cry "bullshit."  Same for flying pink unicorns, Harry Potter and Voldemort, Star Trek, religion and so on.  I have an imagination, I like to use it, but I don't pretend what I imagine is real.  Reversed, just because I'm going to disbelieve in gravity, does not mean I can fly.  Someone may have a universe model where evolution does not occur.  People didn't know about evolution until the last 200 years.  But it still occurred and generated lots of physical evidence in the process.

Idealism explains nothing and does not further our knowledge.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
You still have yet to show any justification for the core assumption of Idealism, you simply keep asserting it.

What you call “assertions” are logical arguments, using thought experiments. I answered you in post #50 in this thread, but you did not respond to my reasoned arguments there.

This was my response to you: 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

Or the mind exists outside or independently of the brain (dualism), ie they are independent but associated things.

Quote:

What do I mean by “the brain is knowledge”?

I mean that there are different fields of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The brain is an idea or knowledge in the field of biology. The brain is a ‘theory’ about the mind in biology. Theory is knowledge.

The brain is an object about which we have some knowledge.

Quote:
 

Further, there is no evidence that knowledge exists in the brain. What do I mean by this? Well, can a neuroscientist discern the most advanced ideas in mathematics by observing the brain of the world’s most advanced mathematician? No, a neuroscientist cannot do that. Therefore, there is no evidence that mathematical knowledge exists within the brain.

The theory that mind is generated by processes within the brain does not make the brain a theory, It is still an object that happens to be intimately associated with our ability to think. It is not a theory itself, it is an object that is theorised about.

You cannot discern the most advanced theories of computer programming by observing the physical circuitry of a computer capable of running such a program.

Can you understand advanced concepts by simply analysing the patterns of ink in a book on the subject?

Subjecting parts of the brain to various forms pf permanent or temporary disruption, by physical impact, chemicals, electrical stimulation or shock, can cause people to lose knowledge they previously had.

Milder forms of stimulation can cause people to recall things they were not thinking of before the stimulation.

Some forms of brain damage, or tumours, can block the laying down of long-term memory.

MRi scans can identify consistent patterns of brain activation associated with particular topics.

So there is evidence that knowledge is stored in the brain, and the fact that we cannot (yet) decode in detail exactly how it is represented there is not evidence that it is not, in the light of all the general evidence that knowledge of all kinds is stored within the brain, just as it can be stored within a book or a computer.

The latest version of your basic error is "The brain is a ‘theory’ about the mind in biology", which should read "The brain is the basis of the theory of the mind in biology". It is meaningless to say that a physical object is a theory. We form theories about objects, and theories can be regarded as a form of abstract 'object', so all theories may be objects, but not all objects are theories. Category error.

Much of the rest of what you say is fine, then you keep slipping in this naked assertion that the 'brain is a belief/knowledge/an idea'.

So until you justify that statement, your account fails to be a valid argument for your position.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

"esse est percipi" – "to be is to be perceived"

 

Well, the materialist cannot scientifically refute this.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Falsifiability

Paisley wrote:

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

"esse est percipi" – "to be is to be perceived"

 

Well, the materialist cannot scientifically refute this.

 

So you contend that idealism is non-falsifiable?

 

If this is the case (and I disagree, see below), then any conclusion validly deduced from idealism is also non-falsifiable (because a falsification of the conclusion would deductively falsify idealism, which we've already assumed can't be done).  Since the OP is attempting to use idealism to conclude the existence of a god, the god concluded is non-falsifiable (assuming the argument used is valid.  If the argument used is not valid, then there's no need to refute anything more).  However, a non-falsifiable concept is also devoid of predictive and explanatory power.  If you can't predict what won't happen, then you can't very well predict what will happen.  And if you can't explain why an event occurred instead of an alternative, then you haven't really explained anything.  As such a god derived from idealism is ultimately meaningless (assuming idealism is non-falsifiable).

 

As it turns out, idealism is not only falsifiable, it is actually falsified by quantum mechanics.  I myself have performed the requisite experiments, namely single photon interference with and without which-path information.  In these experiments, the interference of single photons depends not on whether or not we know which path they took, but on whether or not we could know which path they took if we bothered to look.  To eliminate single-photon interference, it is sufficient to put the photon in such a state that we could, upon measurement, determine which path it took.  However, we do not need to actually carry out the measurement and obtain this knowledge.  This would suggest that which-path information exists and has observable consequences regardless of our knowledge of such information.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:a non-falsifiable

Zaq wrote:

a non-falsifiable concept is also devoid of predictive and explanatory power.  If you can't predict what won't happen, then you can't very well predict what will happen.  And if you can't explain why an event occurred instead of an alternative, then you haven't really explained anything.  As such a god derived from idealism is ultimately meaningless (assuming idealism is non-falsifiable).

 

...And I'm going to borrow this as my new definition for "explanation".  Succintly argued.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:Paisley

Zaq wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Well, the materialist cannot scientifically refute this.

If this is the case (and I disagree, see below), then any conclusion validly deduced from idealism is also non-falsifiable (because a falsification of the conclusion would deductively falsify idealism, which we've already assumed can't be done).  Since the OP is attempting to use idealism to conclude the existence of a god, the god concluded is non-falsifiable (assuming the argument used is valid.  If the argument used is not valid, then there's no need to refute anything more).  However, a non-falsifiable concept is also devoid of predictive and explanatory power.  If you can't predict what won't happen, then you can't very well predict what will happen.  And if you can't explain why an event occurred instead of an alternative, then you haven't really explained anything.  As such a god derived from idealism is ultimately meaningless (assuming idealism is non-falsifiable).

Blah, blah, blah, blah....:yawn:

Zaq wrote:
 

As it turns out, idealism is not only falsifiable, it is actually falsified by quantum mechanics.  I myself have performed the requisite experiments, namely single photon interference with and without which-path information.  In these experiments, the interference of single photons depends not on whether or not we know which path they took, but on whether or not we could know which path they took if we bothered to look.  To eliminate single-photon interference, it is sufficient to put the photon in such a state that we could, upon measurement, determine which path it took.  However, we do not need to actually carry out the measurement and obtain this knowledge.  This would suggest that which-path information exists and has observable consequences regardless of our knowledge of such information.

I fail to see how this refutes "to be is to be perceived."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 Pissed_Ontologist wrote: 

 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
 

Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

Or maybe the knowledge/concept of the brain exists in the mind which exists within the brain.  

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
 

I mean that there are different fields of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The brain is an idea or knowledge in the field of biology. The brain is a ‘theory’ about the mind in biology. Theory is knowledge.

The brain isn't a 'theory'.  The brain is a physical object like a rock.  You can actually open up someones skull and see the brain. 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
 

Further, there is no evidence that knowledge exists in the brain. What do I mean by this? Well, can a neuroscientist discern the most advanced ideas in mathematics by observing the brain of the world’s most advanced mathematician? No, a neuroscientist cannot do that. Therefore, there is no evidence that mathematical knowledge exists within the brain. 

Really, there isn't any evidence.  Then how come people with brain damage often suffer memory loss?


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
The point, Paisly, is that

The point, Paisly, is that we needn't seriously consider irrefutable (in principle) arguments. 


 

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I fail to see

Paisley wrote:

I fail to see how this refutes "to be is to be perceived."

"We say 'To be is to be', and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Aww, well, I regret coming

Aww, well, I regret coming late into this one.

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive its existence?

The same size as it is now.

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
because the notion of size comes from a perceiving mind. Since the universe without minds to perceive it would not be any particular size, it therefore would not exist i.e. it would possess no size.

It would be the same size as it is now. We do not give objects their size. They already have a size. Our knowledge of their size comes from our observation of the size that they already have.

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

Okay, so you are confusing reality with our perception of it. You have proven that if we didn't exist, then our knowledge of the universe wouldn't exist. Can you prove that the universe wouldn't exist.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(I realize I'm 1 month late to the show being put on here, BUT)

BobSpence1 wrote:

I see no logic in that stance.

I don't see much reason-based thinking in the OP, either.


Quote:
It really is that simple. Ontology is not a useful discipline. Another of Aristotle's many errors and failures of reasoning.

The basis of much of the New Testament is supposedly derived from the work of Aristotle...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Zaq wrote: As

Paisley wrote:

Zaq wrote:
 

As it turns out, idealism is not only falsifiable, it is actually falsified by quantum mechanics.  I myself have performed the requisite experiments, namely single photon interference with and without which-path information.  In these experiments, the interference of single photons depends not on whether or not we know which path they took, but on whether or not we could know which path they took if we bothered to look.  To eliminate single-photon interference, it is sufficient to put the photon in such a state that we could, upon measurement, determine which path it took.  However, we do not need to actually carry out the measurement and obtain this knowledge.  This would suggest that which-path information exists and has observable consequences regardless of our knowledge of such information.

I fail to see how this refutes "to be is to be perceived."

All depends on how you define percieved.

If you had both agreed to consider mathematical prediction as falling under the definition of a perception then you would be right and the experiment doesn't discount the statement. On the other hand, failing that agreement and having restricted the definition of a perception to that, only, which is directly measured as it eventuates by some entity, has the result that the statement is overturned by the experiment. 

While the definition of a perception is ambiguous this can't really be resolved fairly.

 

That all said, I'm inclined to ask, supposing that the statement were to be taken as wholly true, then wouldn't we be epistemically out of bounds to use the word "being" here? Once attached to perception it loses all its meaning, right? And the statement just becomes a tautology.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:All depends on

Eloise wrote:

All depends on how you define percieved.

If you had both agreed to consider mathematical prediction as falling under the definition of a perception then you would be right and the experiment doesn't discount the statement. On the other hand, failing that agreement and having restricted the definition of a perception to that, only, which is directly measured as it eventuates by some entity, has the result that the statement is overturned by the experiment. 

While the definition of a perception is ambiguous this can't really be resolved fairly.

The Bedford & Wang claim was shown to be spurious.

Quote:

In a series of AMY newsletters we examined the Bedford & Wang experiment, using density matrices--a more general form of quantum theory than wavefunctions and more appropriate for calculating the effects of entangled subsystems on the final result. We convinced ourselves that the B & W claim was spurious: a simple density-matrix calculation showed that only one aperture is ever open whether mind collapses the photons at the screen or materialism collapses the photons at, say, detector

(source: "<a href="http://www.southerncrossreview.org/17/amy.htm">The Amy Project</a>" by Nick Herbert)

Eloise wrote:

That all said, I'm inclined to ask, supposing that the statement were to be taken as wholly true, then wouldn't we be epistemically out of bounds to use the word "being" here? Once attached to perception it loses all its meaning, right? And the statement just becomes a tautology.

What exactly is the epistemological offense?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I think this applies to the

I think this applies to the conversation...

 

'Katz, however, says being able to reverse the collapse "tells us that we really can't assume that measurements create reality because it is possible to erase the effects of a measurement and start again."'

 

Source

 


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Which-Path Information

The point is that which-path information exists even when we don't know it.  By adding which-path information to the single-photon system, we eliminate single-photon interference.  This occurs even when:

1. The observer never actually identifies which path the photon took

2. The observer does not know, prior to photon detection, whether or not which-path information has been added

Thus which-path information exists and produces observable effects even when we do not know what the information is or even whether or not the information exists.

 

"All depends on how you define percieved (sic)." -Eloise

No, it really doesn't.  You can't meaningfully define perception in a way that makes it so an experimenter "perceives" which-path information even while that same experimenter has no idea whether or not that which-path information exists, especially when claiming that "to be is to be perceived."  Again, which-path information can cause observable effects even when we don't know that it is there.

 

A more accurate claim, in light of single-photon interference experiments, is that to be is to be perceivable.  In other words, the fact that which-path information exists in the system is equivalent to the fact that we could tell which path the photon took if we wanted to, not that we do know which path the photon took.  This idea also works well with the quantum eraser experiments to which v4ultingbassist refers.  In these experiments, which-path information is removed from the system by making it impossible to figure out which path the photon took.  This has a very different effect than simply choosing not to tell which-path the photon took (the former restores single-photon interference while the latter does not).  These experiments demonstrate that it is the ability to be perceived, rather than the event of being perceived, that matters for which-path information.

 

And Paisly, "Blah, blah, blah, blah....:yawn:" is not an adequate response to the problem of falsifiability.

 

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:And Paisly, "Blah,

Zaq wrote:

And Paisly, "Blah, blah, blah, blah....:yawn:" is not an adequate response to the problem of falsifiability. 

Idealism is a metaphysical belief, not a scientific theory. IOW, that it is not falsifiable only proves my point that it cannot be refuted.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Zaq wrote:And

Paisley wrote:

Zaq wrote:

And Paisly, "Blah, blah, blah, blah....:yawn:" is not an adequate response to the problem of falsifiability. 

Idealism is a metaphysical belief, not a scientific theory. IOW, that it is not falsifiable only proves my point that it cannot be refuted.

 

And again you completely miss the point.  The problem of falsifiability doesn't refute the truth of your claim.  Rather, it points out the uselessness of the claim.  When you have an unfalsifiable concept, its truth or falsehood become irrelevant because true or false, it won't get you anywhere.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.