Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

"butterfly effect"

yes; the 'wave' does act upon existence!

that 'pressure' is a definition that is incomplete of causality; it is an opinion rather than a final rendition

which does not mean the action did not occur. the imposition to a wave, may not be understood, but that does not mean the cause is primarily "uncertain"

or better said, just because you are not aware does not mean, it is not occuring; you breath unaware of the action all day long.

all of them; the exchange is electromagnetic (light)

no interaction can exchange without it

the words just gummy up the opinions.... "red is rojo to another"

to comprehend this; 'we' are just exchanging at the same level and words are the fractals to define each color

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I completely agree with your "Sound is what is being experienced or perceived."

But not with your final sentence, which contradicts that. I.e. How can sound exist independent of its perception if "Sound is what is being experienced or perceived." ?

You still are not clearly distinguishing between sound waves and sound.
The first is a form of energy and the second is an experience or perception.

Again the visual analog may help you:

5000 Angstrom EM waves are clearly distinguished from color blue.
The first is a form of energy and the second is an experience or perception.

I prefer the POV of the Scientific American to the dictionary you quoted. The third paragraph of post 462 quotes the Scientific American as stating:
"If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."

I will admit that dictionaries do tend to reflect common usage, even when it is confused and not as precise as it should be.
I am attempting to get you and others to be more precise and thus avoid the self contraction in blue above.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i agree

and each can cause an effect (knowingly or unknowingly)

defining these that are common sense (equal) to all; is the trick of knowledge (words to comprehension; understanding)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or dream that we do.

 

The phrase was "I think therefore I exist" and it does not confirm experience.

 

i was wrong on the phrase

incorrect on your analogy

eg.......... if you could not experience, you could not confirm it!


to experience is to be aware; consciously

 

just to allow some to comprehend the word

Definitions of experience on the Web:

•go or live through; "We had many trials to go through"; "he saw action in Viet Nam"
•know: have firsthand knowledge of states, situations, emotions, or sensations; "I know the feeling!"; "have you ever known hunger?"; "I have lived a kind of hell when I was a drug addict"; "The holocaust survivors have lived a nightmare"; "I lived through two divorces"
•go through (mental or physical states or experiences); "get an idea"; "experience vertigo"; "get nauseous"; "receive injuries"; "have a feeling"
•the accumulation of knowledge or skill that results from direct participation in events or activities; "a man of experience"; "experience is the ...
•feel: undergo an emotional sensation or be in a particular state of mind; "She felt resentful"; "He felt regret"
•have: undergo; "The stocks had a fast run-up"
•an event as apprehended; "a surprising experience"; "that painful experience certainly got our attention"



experience is a conscious thought

 

oooops


"I think, therefore i am"

just to correct all comers

 

It wasn't an analogy.
And experience is NOT confirmed by Descarte's phrase, in fact it was the lack of experiential confirmation that led him to that conclusion.

 

did not say that;

i said YOUR opinion (anology) of the phrase NOT confirming is exactly the same as you not comprehending what it meant and why it is so important.

perhaps use your head

"to experience, confirms your existence" (that is what it means)


the lack of experimental evidence is why the intellectual approach is self evidence

the life is self determining its existence

(Mass/energy; comprehending it is)

 

And the post I was referring to seems to have been altered or deleted...

An opinion is NOT an analogy.

No it doesn't. It means that thinking is the only way he could confirm his existence since experience is not objective or provable.

 

quite opposite;

experience is always objective; it just is

opinions and the mind is where thinking can ruin the objectivity


you are now butchering descartes?

 

No, experience is subjective - that's why Descartes got started on that line of thought.

Nope, ALL experience is subjective.

One of us is, and it's not me.

 

Sorry Bishadi, it's you who is administering the butchery.
Oli's comments regarding Descartes is correct.

Mod Hat:

p.s. Let's all keep the personal insults to a zero.

 

Hmm, how can water exist independent of whether it is being tasted if water is what is tasted?

How can a fart exist independent of whether it is being smelled if a fart is what is being smelled?

Tough questions, I think you can eventually figure out that the perception of an object is not the object or the objects creation.

I clearly see no need to.

Only in your mind. As you agreed..."I completely agree with your "Sound is what is being experienced or perceived"" and that experience is called hearing.

As in "I heard a sound."

No one except perhaps you says "I sound a sound wave." Your proposal is grammatically preposterous.

Also, your language is imprecise. You aren't hearing a sound wave. The sounds you hear are a conglomerate of innumerable sound waves, most of which are analyzed and filtered out.

 

Is a hypothesis and has not been shown to exist and probablty doesn't since the flap's "signal" is lost to entropy pretty quickly.

Nothing else was terribly comprehensible.

 

Experience qua experience can be subjective or objective.

The awareness of, processing of and memory of the experience is subjetive.

You have to redefine terms so as to make them mere mockeries of their normal meaning to claim all experience is subjective.

The interesting question is can one effectively distinguish between subjective and objective experience and under what conditions.

 

the thing is the foundation of any mathematics , at least in the physical , is based on the ability too imagine the physical dynamics and then apply the mathematics

such as Maxwell and Farady

Maxwell imagines the physical dynamics , Faraday comes up with the mathematics to explain Maxwell's assertions

 

is not Helen Keller's experience ( she was both blind and def ) a pretty good indication that there is an objective reality

a reality of which , regardless of our senses , exists , independently of the existence of our selves ?

obviously yes

perhaps looking at the people who lack senses is our greater helper to understanding an objective reality than those who have all their senses working fundamentally

 

Obviously no.
Despite lacking in some ability to sense, she nonetheless did have a sensory environment. An environment that was processed in her mind (as ours is..).

Aberrations do not do not undermine the law.