3 ms·

> Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining t

by nico 3y ago

> Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining things that reside “only in consciousness” Everything we know about anything is mediated through our subjective understanding and perception. Be it mathematical formulas that describe the universe or feelings about something. If you remove people, we don’t know what there is, because we have no way of knowing Sure you can remove some people and have others observe, but that is still mediated by people We can never truly know anything that we don’t perceive ourselves - so it is just impossible to know anything about a universe that doesn’t include our perception of it

bashinator 3y ago
> impossible to know anything about a universe that doesn’t include our perception of it The optimistic take for me is that this is a fundamental feature of the Universe.
- karmakaze 3y ago
  Sounds true but is it? We can't perceive neutrinos.
  - bashinator 3y ago
    Says the guy who knows about neutrinos.
    - karmakaze 3y ago
      That's funny, you got me! It comes down to what we mean by know and perception. If by know we mean prove, then we can know things in other universes that may or may not exist by creating axiomatic systems that don't match our own. If we mean know as believe to the core (such as believing the mechanics of a proof) than we can know many things, some which may be true but unprovable or may simply be false. I can say I'm aware of neutrinos and believe they exist as formulated, but couldn't say they absolutely exist in our universe. Earlier models only turned out to be approximations.
      - bashinator 3y ago
        To extend your argument, nothing we perceive is _exactly_ how it exists in the universe. Everything that comes into our senses is an approximation, whether directly or via technological instrumentation. I don’t think any of that contradicts the possibility that consciousness is some state of matter.
jayd16 3y ago
> it is just impossible to know anything about a universe that doesn’t include our perception of it Is this true? What about logical deductions? Can't you use math and logic to know things without perceiving them?
- nico 3y ago
  To me, the quote and your questions seem like different concepts Regarding your questions: There is a difference between intellectual knowledge and experience Sometimes the concept of gnosis is used to differentiate them So for example, you can read a book about riding a bike, maybe the book is very detailed and tells you everything there is to “know” about riding a bike, but unless you actually ride a bike, you can never “truly know” (experience) what riding a bike is Now regarding our perception and the universe: We live in the universe, we are part of it, we can’t ever separate ourselves from it Then how would we ever be able to remove our perception from it? It’s impossible to truly know Of course we can speculate and we can come up with endless ideas, but we can never truly know anything that we don’t experience In that sense, even our ideas are mediated through our inner perception of them And of course this is my own subjective perception of my reality, as it is all I have
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > So for example, you can read a book about riding a bike, maybe the book is very detailed and tells you everything there is to “know” about riding a bike, but unless you actually ride a bike, you can never “truly know” (experience) what riding a bike is This is often asserted, but I don't see any reason to believe it is true. Just like we can picture creatures that have never existed, and even draw elaborate images of them, with enough detail and introspection we can picture an experience. And even if we really couldn't, this would at best be a limitation of our wiring, there would be no reason to think it's a limitation of any conscious being. After all, a computer is perfectly able to simulate itself and to simulate any input it could receive, so it can clearly simulate any possible experience it could have given enough details. By the same token, the fact that we can't control our optic nerves (nor other senses) as precisely is an accident of our genetic makeup, not some fundamental property.

by nico 3y ago

bashinator 3y ago

> impossible to know anything about a universe that doesn’t include our perception of it The optimistic take for me is that this is a fundamental feature of the Universe.

karmakaze 3y ago
Sounds true but is it? We can't perceive neutrinos.
- bashinator 3y ago
  Says the guy who knows about neutrinos.
  - karmakaze 3y ago
    That's funny, you got me! It comes down to what we mean by know and perception. If by know we mean prove, then we can know things in other universes that may or may not exist by creating axiomatic systems that don't match our own. If we mean know as believe to the core (such as believing the mechanics of a proof) than we can know many things, some which may be true but unprovable or may simply be false. I can say I'm aware of neutrinos and believe they exist as formulated, but couldn't say they absolutely exist in our universe. Earlier models only turned out to be approximations.
    - bashinator 3y ago
      To extend your argument, nothing we perceive is _exactly_ how it exists in the universe. Everything that comes into our senses is an approximation, whether directly or via technological instrumentation. I don’t think any of that contradicts the possibility that consciousness is some state of matter.

jayd16 3y ago

> it is just impossible to know anything about a universe that doesn’t include our perception of it Is this true? What about logical deductions? Can't you use math and logic to know things without perceiving them?

nico 3y ago
To me, the quote and your questions seem like different concepts Regarding your questions: There is a difference between intellectual knowledge and experience Sometimes the concept of gnosis is used to differentiate them So for example, you can read a book about riding a bike, maybe the book is very detailed and tells you everything there is to “know” about riding a bike, but unless you actually ride a bike, you can never “truly know” (experience) what riding a bike is Now regarding our perception and the universe: We live in the universe, we are part of it, we can’t ever separate ourselves from it Then how would we ever be able to remove our perception from it? It’s impossible to truly know Of course we can speculate and we can come up with endless ideas, but we can never truly know anything that we don’t experience In that sense, even our ideas are mediated through our inner perception of them And of course this is my own subjective perception of my reality, as it is all I have
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > So for example, you can read a book about riding a bike, maybe the book is very detailed and tells you everything there is to “know” about riding a bike, but unless you actually ride a bike, you can never “truly know” (experience) what riding a bike is This is often asserted, but I don't see any reason to believe it is true. Just like we can picture creatures that have never existed, and even draw elaborate images of them, with enough detail and introspection we can picture an experience. And even if we really couldn't, this would at best be a limitation of our wiring, there would be no reason to think it's a limitation of any conscious being. After all, a computer is perfectly able to simulate itself and to simulate any input it could receive, so it can clearly simulate any possible experience it could have given enough details. By the same token, the fact that we can't control our optic nerves (nor other senses) as precisely is an accident of our genetic makeup, not some fundamental property.