Gravity. You can use a gravitometer to detect if it has snowed in your roof last night for example lol. So you "see" snow.

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut...n/studieso.pdf


“...Concluding on a lighter topic, let me remind the GGP community of what I recall as probably the most memorable moment of the first campaign. It occurred at the GGP Workshop in Munsbach Castle, 1999, when Virtanen was describing the effect of snow
cover on the residual gravity at Metsahovi. He showed a figure of gravity increasing by about 2 microgal over a 4-h period as men shoveled snow from the roof of the SG station, when a member of the audience asked why there was an interruption in the rise of gravity,
Heikki said this was a 'tea break'...”

D. Crossley, in Journal of Geodynamics 38/3-4 (2004), p. 234. "


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

We "see" neutrinos with detectors too eg from a supernova.

also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

What i meant is that the objective reality of the moon is not in question as it is for an electron's spin or position.

Of course while you are not looking someone could have destroyed it but that event would also have objective reality even if you didnt know about it.

Pretty much where I wanted to go.

We don't see with the eye, we perceive w the mind. A lyric from a Gorrilaz song I believe.
If it's a scientific fact that colour doesn't exist out there in the world, that is that it's a construct of the mind, adjectives like rocky, or hard, or spherical come in to question.

Hume thought that while colour of a object is subjective, its mass isn't.
Berkeley asked us to imagine a triangle without thinking of colour.

How about the consciousness of H. erectus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H. erectus

Where do you draw the line from other animals?

We don't see light for it is not material; we see color an image of color.

The idea that atoms and molecules are the hidden reality is a superstition built upon theory mandated by a materialistic basis of weights and measures.

Hey we can sense! I describe what I can sense. Can I has consciousness?.

You are manifesting a "day consciousness".

You probably have experienced a "dream consciousness" which, of course, is not so comprehensible for it does not fit into our intellectual meanderings, or "day consciousness".

As mentioned previously there is the "consciousness of deep sleep" to which most would consider "unconsciousness".

Our language causes us to give "length" and "breadth" to our concepts and so we speak of "consciousness", incorrectly, as something which is external to Man and therefore "comes to him", in some manner or form .

If I run into a wall , full tilt, I will certainly experience myself in some manner. I will hurt and will be "conscious of self" or "self conscious" . Our senses, in like manner, affect us and in proper experience, morph our sense of "self consciousness" . In this we "sense ourselves" in subtleties of morphological senses. We become "individual" or a "personality".

The world, the day world especially, "forms who we are", a self conscious personality .

The eyes of Man, in evolution , are formed by the light burning holes into the being of man and of course the soul responding , within suffering as basis of this existence, by forming the eyes. "The eyes are created for the light , by the light."

The human being in evolution, suffers , into a creative newness.

"Consciousness" within this human entelechy is a "dynamic"dependent upon "impediments" to this very movement ; we grow through our impediments to life which relates directly to the very real "fall of man" to which previously we had no sense of "self consciousness" (finger on the body).

Yeah, but I'm elastic and bend light with senses for senses. So are you, probably.

Yes, and are we all conscious? Or are there degrees? More or less? I remember me coming home from school as a maybe 8-year old, the sun was shining, saw the sea, and I was conscious. Must have been an unique event, never felt quite that way again I think. Something apparently happened. And then lost at times

If a being "suffers within" , so to speak, then he exhibits "conscious" behavior.

It is evident that plants and minerals do not suffer and and do not have an earthly consciousness . Animals can and do suffer and do have an earthly consciousness .

The differences between the animal and man is related to the "Ego" or the "I" of Man . As both animal and man have a "soul" through which "suffering" is experienced the "Ego" of Man is related to the "self conscious ego" to which the animal is not privy.

I know, it seems that we give names to our pets who will respond, seemingly as an individual but in Man there is "memory" to which a man becomes individualized. In some cases it may happen that a man loses the ability to remember and this is catastrophic in that he may be able to count, calculate and buy a plane ticket to a far away land bur he would have lost this very sense of self .

He may act in this manner for awhile and end up in Calcutta, finally realizing who he was (is) . To be clear as to the difference between animal and man :

The animal does not have a memory even though he may relish a cookie for this is not the "ego work" but more in tuned with a sensory ability,"my master makes me feel good" as the tail wags. If Man becomes , as animal with loss of ego, he lives "within oblivion", no memory , the world rolls on.

The Man, with sense of self, a personality , has a memory and in this capabilities are carried on from one incarnation unto the next. This is the realm of the "Ego".

I'm fairly confident in my elasticity to share consciousness with 'plants and and rocks'. So they are "in" locally around my parts.

What is mass but the tactile perception of it?

Mass has an influence on what is around it. W/O mass we'd all be floating in space.

While we may or may not all see the color red similarly it's not the case that we all experience the seeing of red the same. Our experience of seeing red involves a complex cascade of associations with past experiences which involve seeing the color red. For example, someone who suffered childhood trauma seeing red from a bloody accident will experience seeing red differently from someone who associates seeing red with his favorite childhood toy fire engine.

This is also true with our experience of words. Our sense of understanding words is metaphoric. When learning a new concept the "I get it" moment comes when we see "it's like this" or "it's like that". And like our experience seeing red, our experience hearing or using a word involves a complex cascade of associations involving past experience with the word. For example, someone like masque who has studied numerous physics experiments, the data they've produced, and the theories derived from them involving the word "mass" experiences the word "mass" differently than a furniture mover.


Point being, when we talk about so called "objective reality", not only are we stuck with the limitations of living within our perspective, but we create yet another barrier to what we are trying to talk about by the use of language which blankets us with yet another constraint by our perspective of it.



As soon as you start talking about God you're talking about something else.



PairTheBoard

It has to do with the nature of thinking and our appreciation of the same. If you and I look at the color on the same apple we both see the "color red". Our senses do not lie save for matters like the blind and deaf,...etc.

I think there are those who question as to how we can have the same experience only because they cannot offer any proof of the same. What is said is that by the time the experience travels through the air, to the inner eye, to the nerves, to the brain the experience has nothing to do with the initial incitement. Ergo, the experience of "red" is my own and has no relation to the "red" on the apple.

That is the materialist/modern scientific view point which doesn't allow for the reality of thinking. According to this stance the "color" is lost in the machinations/meanderings of the incitement to the central nervous system(brain).

What we observe is only a half of the experience and we bring thinking into action and through sense free thinking we "sense" the concept or the "idea" behind the "color red". In the process of thinking the "concept", the hidden aspect of the apple and its red color is explored and ascertained by our ability to think.

The reality is not complete until the perception/concept is merged through the powers of the thinking man and then we have the truth in toto. The man completes the merger and in this the total real or truth is ascertained.

What we see is a "half truth" and by thinking the individual man completes the picture, a cosmic event. Now it is possible to bring truths forth different from one's neighbor which are related to "position" of perception or difference in physicality(blind, deaf,etc).

"Truth" is the same for all men but Man is a limited being in that he only perceives a portion of the sensible and in this he brings forth his findings. What happens is that the individual man"cuts off the perception and then through thinking brings the percept/concept together again via thinking.

The question still becomes; is my thinking the same as yours ? The individual does not own his thinking otherwise the dreadful chaos would ensue; imagine each of us battling with no way out of a million different thinkings within the world. Truth is ascertained through thinking and we live by the "grace of thinking". Thinking brings us into the realm of "truth" and the "good" which is common to all mankind.

"In thinking I experience myself united with the stream of cosmic existence."

The "thought" or "concept" of that thing that sits on my shoulders is the same for all men but indeed in language it morphs into "head" for the English, "kopf" for the German and "testa" for the Italian.

The thought is the same but the creative language exposes itself for in English it appears to something like the "head of state", in German it appears as a "rounded form" and in Italian there is the "testament" or last will and testament.

That thing on our shoulders is referenced to different presentations in the three languages and can give very different meanings in context which is the difficulty in attempting to "think within words", a translator is needed.

I'm going to have to think about that.


PairTheBoard

Me too.

Although I ultimately would join with the chorus ITT that's opposing the naive empiricist account of consciousness, as people (presumably) interested in scientific knowledge, it's worth reflecting on what makes this position attractive. Dennett and his ilk offer a fairly convincing account of the mechanisms that underlie the operations of perception by simply borrowing their description from natural science. They're going with "whatever is the current best scientific understanding of the operations of the brain and sensory organs." Although this view leaves plenty of room for doubt around the margins, especially where there are competing scientific theories, and possibly also opens up a Kuhnian attack (there could always be another paradigm shift!), Dennett & co. can just respond that their opponents are no better off, being themselves historically located subjects with limited scientific knowledge.

Their point (and maybe also Masque de Z's, I didn't read all of his posts) is that the flow of experiences inside our heads, "qualia," is directly determined by--is a function of--the specific arrangement of neurons and glial cells and neurotransmitters inside our brains, extended through the nervous system toward contact with the "outside" world, i.e., photons, sound waves, chemical signals, electrical charges, and all the other things to which our senses respond + some mechanism that allows the brain to carry out computation. In a certain sense, this is obviously correct, since we seem to experience a world about which we can make rational conclusions. But where Dennett & co. err is in assuming that this means that the flow of experience--we're calling it consciousness--in some way reduces to or is an emergent phenomenon of this physical arrangement.

Penrose & Hameroff show that, even within a fully empiricist paradigm, this need not be the case. Dennett's position, they argue, fails to understand the significance of the quantum revolution. If this is the nature of consciousness, they argue, the state of a conscious system can never be computed. If at any point the physical process generating it depends on (is a function of) a superposition--i.e., if anything in the brain doesn't behave as a classical computer--then we can't get there; the quantum nature of the universe imposes a hard limit. Even with perfect information (a completed connectomics project, say), the computational engine attempting to provide a complete description of the state of the brain-machine will hit a limit imposed by quantum indeterminacy. Moreover, the making of the measurement necessary to completely determine the state of the system would cause the wave function to collapse, such that, from an outside perspective, the operations of consciousness will always appear completely determinate.

Penrose shows that such non-computable functions--non-repeating patterns--are perfectly possible in mathematics (Google "Penrose tiles"); Hameroff provides a candidate structure within the brain that's potentially sensitive to quantum-scale vibration: microtubules, which are located in the neuronal cytoskeleton. For me, their theory is deeply appealing in that it seems to explain free will (no one can know exactly what I'll do before I do it, not even me); the "problem" of other minds (behavior that is actually the result of a non-computable process appears deterministic from outside); and the semi-regularities of human psychology (non-computable processes still exhibit local patterns and predictable properties depending on their parameters).

I'd put some YouTube clips in here but you guys know how to use the search bar, I presume.

Good point. It remains to be seen how much in the brain is real quantum effects. I'd guess not very much, the brain and its functions are that macroscopic. But at certain points when really balancing between alternatives, why not.

Mechanism dies hard , yet cannot and will not conceive the idea of "thought" within this materialist purview. The mathematics is always right but wanting within the present milieu of scientific materialism.

So Dennett says that another's ideas are no better than his ? Geez , wonderful .

Does the brain create thoughts ?

What you say makes sense.

Yet, its unnecessary.

When Godel and Wittgenstein found that you can know truths without ever being able to prove them. They closed the case.

This is too snarky and perhaps another understanding will help.

Modern science has evolved the highest of spirituality within its thoughts but the thoughts are abstract (you hear this often), meaning the thoughts are without life.

It states that "we will only look to the earth" and indeed it has progressed even unto the sub earthly but the work is to take those thoughts of this sub earthly/earthly , warm them up or in other words enliven them into imaginative pictures and in essence create the future state of mankind.

The science of today is immersed in the spiritual through their thinking but cannot see it for , ostrich like, the heads of our leaders and followers alike are stuck in the sand.

Change your attitude, change your mind bent, and the mathematics of that realm (spirit) and other findings will follow. You think in the spirit; cleanse yourselves of any past mantras of the wobblys of a Hollywood "supernatural' or other derisive terms and do what you purport to do ; study the earth with proper attitude and the heavens will open up into the amalgam perspective of the real.

If you don't enjoy the performance, change it. Add new dancers, take out the horn section, uplift the dialogue, change the set's color scheme, include an analogy...

Word.

I just think it's interesting the way that insight plays out in practice: Theories that (implicitly or explicitly) posit the opposite turn out to be empirically wrong, reflecting failures of the imagination.

I don't think quantum theory is much help. Even if quantum indeterminancy plays a significant role in brain activity it's still a materialist model providing not the slightest hint for why such a quantum computing machine should produce consciousness. Off topic, but I don't think randomness advances free will either.


PairTheBoard