All Causality is Teleological

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: All Causality is Teleological

Postby Serendipper » Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:50 am

Guide wrote:
“Objectivity is an observerless observation. If there is an observer, then it's subjectivity and not objectivity.”


The group thinks this sounds like a so-called subject reading a computer readout. Ergo, the so-called “observation”, if one spell it out plainly, is a measurement by a machine. And it reaches only the assumed to be “subject”, none other.

Observation is a matter of fact, which is consensus of opinion viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194190&start=25#p2705957

Whatever the machine says is interpreted by the observer as a matter of fact based on the consensus of his opinion.


“If you are separate from the universe, then how can you observe it?
If you are part of the universe, then how can you observe it?”


So far as the group understands this, it generally and vaguely agrees. Though, it would be better to reach a closer sensing of what this says. Not sure how the group can speak of subjectivity under such a saying, as is in these two statements or sentences.

It means if you are separate from the universe, you cannot see the universe because in order to see it, you'd have to be in it because there is no space or light outside the universe. And if you are in the universe, then you are a part of the universe and therefore can't observe the whole universe. So there is no way to make an objective observation.

You can try to deduce what the universe would look like from the outside, but you can't actually do it. Deduction may be a valid form of observation (according to Goethe), but you cannot test it (empirical confirmation).

Is a blue spine of a book seen? Or, rather, is it simply being. Is it seen, is it there, or is it a being. This points to three different undeveloped determinations. To be there, still there when the human closes its eyes. To be seen, seen when the human sees it. To be, this is difficult.

The book and the observer is one. There is no book that is separate from the observer. If there were, then the observer could not see the book. That is the point you're missing.

Existence (being) is relational. There is no such thing as abstract existence.

Branches have no meaning without an atmosphere.”

That is not true, since there is no atmosphere in dreams and imagination and memory.

The atmosphere is as real as the branches in the dream.

The being of the pattern comes prior to any examination about what causes it. Otherwise, how would one ask?

Well, who is asking? Who beats your heart? You do it, right? You've been doing it long before you had neurology to ask how it's done or who does it. Now your myth of yourself is asking how a pattern came into existence that you put into existence.

One asks, what is the cause of the green, not, what is the cause of the, as it were, nothing? It is not obvious that the green does not come first ultimitly, literally or historically, it did come first.

There is no such thing as green unless there is an eye and a brain to see it.

The sun sits in total darkness unless there is something to see the light or feel the heat. The emission and reception of a photon is the same event, which takes zero time. If there is nothing to receive the photon, then how can there be an event?

You're thinking that the sun just spews radiation off into nothingness; it doesn't. Every pitcher has a catcher. Every photon that has left the sun has already arrived at its destination, just not from our point of view.

Since, if there were no green, there could never be green leaves. It’s not evident what it means for green to exist.

Green is just a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The reason leaves are green is because blue is a higher frequency and therefore higher energy and therefore better to get energy from. UV is too high and causes molecules to vibrate apart (sun burn). Red is also a good frequency of light from which to harvest energy only because red light can penetrate. But green is the odd man out. A chlorophyll molecule cannot resonate at every frequency, but only one, so it resonates strongest at blue and some in red (as a harmonic), but not green. Resonance is the product of bond strength and mass. So the reason green is green is because atoms had a specific mass and bond strength when arranged in a pattern that was most efficient for harvesting energy from the given light (which itself is a product of the composition of the sun... as the sun ages, the light will shift red because elements get heavier and plants will likely evolve to efficiently utilize that spectrum and will probably look black in the red light... so our new green would be black).

Everything that exists is contingent upon the environment that existed prior and green is just an artifact of the way atoms are built which is an artifact of some other truth and on and on.

Why you see green as green, I don't know. Do you see the same green that I do?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: All Causality is Teleological

Postby Guide » Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:23 pm

“If you are separate from the universe, then how can you observe it?
If you are part of the universe, then how can you observe it?”


So far as the group understands this, it generally and vaguely agrees. Though, it would be better to reach a closer sensing of what this says. Not sure how the group can speak of subjectivity under such a saying, as is in these two statements or sentences.

It means if you are separate from the universe, you cannot see the universe because in order to see it, you'd have to be in it because there is no space or light outside the universe. And if you are in the universe, then you are a part of the universe and therefore can't observe the whole universe. So there is no way to make an objective observation.

You can try to deduce what the universe would look like from the outside, but you can't actually do it. Deduction may be a valid form of observation (according to Goethe), but you cannot test it (empirical confirmation).


Goethe was speaking of reason. That which appeals to the soul or judgment about things said that make sense. Reason no longer plays a role in deduction under the current conception of nature, nature as what is measurable. Deduction simply means math, its rules. Induction can only mean statistical data under this notion of reality. Universe is already ruled out as a notion of reason in the way its set out here, that takes no form in mathematical physics. Observation in a loose sense is not the issue, since the mathamatical physics is prefigured such that observation means measurement.



Is a blue spine of a book seen? Or, rather, is it simply being. Is it seen, is it there, or is it a being. This points to three different undeveloped determinations. To be there, still there when the human closes its eyes. To be seen, seen when the human sees it. To be, this is difficult.

The book and the observer is one. There is no book that is separate from the observer. If there were, then the observer could not see the book. That is the point you're missing.

Existence (being) is relational. There is no such thing as abstract existence.


This doesn't add up with the group’s other answer:

“Observation is a matter of fact, which is consensus of opinion viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194190&start=25#p2705957


Whatever the machine says is interpreted by the observer as a matter of fact based on the consensus of his opinion.”

If something is “interpreted” we speak of a “separate” observer and thing the machine “says”. The “opinion” stands even further from the thing, within the “observer” and “separate” from the so-called “fact”.

So, the group doesn’t understand what it is saying, but produces notion it hasn’t entered into. It would have to withstand the difficulty of keeping with the thinking it supposes in the mere statements. Anyone can produce a series of statements, for instance by repeating the words of a great thinker, few can genuinely enter into them.

Branches have no meaning without an atmosphere.”

That is not true, since there is no atmosphere in dreams and imagination and memory.

The atmosphere is as real as the branches in the dream.


The group says, in this sense one speaks of beings & not “facts” in any sense.

The being of the pattern comes prior to any examination about what causes it. Otherwise, how would one ask?

Well, who is asking? Who beats your heart? You do it, right? You've been doing it long before you had neurology to ask how it's done or who does it. Now your myth of yourself is asking how a pattern came into existence that you put into existence.


The group says, such is one way of thinking alongside many others of the group.


One asks, what is the cause of the green, not, what is the cause of the, as it were, nothing? It is not obvious that the green does not come first ultimitly, literally or historically, it did come first.

There is no such thing as green unless there is an eye and a brain to see it.

The sun sits in total darkness unless there is something to see the light or feel the heat. The emission and reception of a photon is the same event, which takes zero time. If there is nothing to receive the photon, then how can there be an event?

You're thinking that the sun just spews radiation off into nothingness; it doesn't. Every pitcher has a catcher. Every photon that has left the sun has already arrived at its destination, just not from our point of view.


The group says the group moves rapidly, to the point of total lack of power of thought, between the many: talking of “eye and brain”, and conceptual play with the notion of no “self” and “myth” of distinctions. Here, one should notice the logos, as what speaks the whole account as a difficulty.


Since, if there were no green, there could never be green leaves. It’s not evident what it means for green to exist.

Green is just a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The reason leaves are green is because blue is a higher frequency and therefore higher energy and therefore better to get energy from. UV is too high and causes molecules to vibrate apart (sun burn). Red is also a good frequency of light from which to harvest energy only because red light can penetrate. But green is the odd man out. A chlorophyll molecule cannot resonate at every frequency, but only one, so it resonates strongest at blue and some in red (as a harmonic), but not green. Resonance is the product of bond strength and mass. So the reason green is green is because atoms had a specific mass and bond strength when arranged in a pattern that was most efficient for harvesting energy from the given light (which itself is a product of the composition of the sun... as the sun ages, the light will shift red because elements get heavier and plants will likely evolve to efficiently utilize that spectrum and will probably look black in the red light... so our new green would be black).

Everything that exists is contingent upon the environment that existed prior and green is just an artifact of the way atoms are built which is an artifact of some other truth and on and on.


Why you see green as green, I don't know. Do you see the same green that I do?


Not sure why the many with their scientific account of green would show up, without the being of green from which it first starts and has its life.
Guide
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: All Causality is Teleological

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:18 pm

Guide wrote:
“If you are separate from the universe, then how can you observe it?
If you are part of the universe, then how can you observe it?”


So far as the group understands this, it generally and vaguely agrees. Though, it would be better to reach a closer sensing of what this says. Not sure how the group can speak of subjectivity under such a saying, as is in these two statements or sentences.

It means if you are separate from the universe, you cannot see the universe because in order to see it, you'd have to be in it because there is no space or light outside the universe. And if you are in the universe, then you are a part of the universe and therefore can't observe the whole universe. So there is no way to make an objective observation.

You can try to deduce what the universe would look like from the outside, but you can't actually do it. Deduction may be a valid form of observation (according to Goethe), but you cannot test it (empirical confirmation).


Goethe was speaking of reason. That which appeals to the soul or judgment about things said that make sense. Reason no longer plays a role in deduction under the current conception of nature, nature as what is measurable. Deduction simply means math, its rules. Induction can only mean statistical data under this notion of reality. Universe is already ruled out as a notion of reason in the way its set out here, that takes no form in mathematical physics. Observation in a loose sense is not the issue, since the mathamatical physics is prefigured such that observation means measurement.

Deduction isn't math, but logic and logic is a means of perceiving the universe just like vision, but what is perceiving what? The thing that is doing the observing is part of the thing that is being observed.

The book and the observer is one. There is no book that is separate from the observer. If there were, then the observer could not see the book. That is the point you're missing.

Existence (being) is relational. There is no such thing as abstract existence.


This doesn't add up with the group’s other answer:

“Observation is a matter of fact, which is consensus of opinion viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194190&start=25#p2705957


Whatever the machine says is interpreted by the observer as a matter of fact based on the consensus of his opinion.”

If something is “interpreted” we speak of a “separate” observer and thing the machine “says”. The “opinion” stands even further from the thing, within the “observer” and “separate” from the so-called “fact”.

So, the group doesn’t understand what it is saying, but produces notion it hasn’t entered into. It would have to withstand the difficulty of keeping with the thinking it supposes in the mere statements. Anyone can produce a series of statements, for instance by repeating the words of a great thinker, few can genuinely enter into them.


There is no thing that is separate. If there were, you could not be aware of it. If you can be aware, then it is not separate. Everything in the universe is part of the universe and things outside this universe cannot be detected from inside this universe. Existence is relational: everything that exists, exists as a function of, in relation to, as a part of, inside of something. So "fact" is not a thing that can exist objectively/abstractly; it can only be relative to interpretation. For example the speed of light is 300,000 meters per second, but what is a meter and what is a second? Well, they are artifacts of this universe and consensus of opinion. Light only has movement at all in relation to the thing it is part of. You can't measure the speed abstractly/objectively because there is no such thing as speed outside the universe. And a meter is just an arbitrary length that people agreed upon.

Branches have no meaning without an atmosphere.”

That is not true, since there is no atmosphere in dreams and imagination and memory.

The atmosphere is as real as the branches in the dream.


The group says, in this sense one speaks of beings & not “facts” in any sense.

Facts are always relative. There are no objective facts and it's meaningless to consider if there could be.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]