Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RanyaAnusih t1_j38to1g wrote

Reply to comment by aesu in The Persistent Problem of Consciousness: an astronaut's epiphany by simsquatched

Just the word observables is problematic. We dont even know what are space or time to begin with, nor consciousness. It would be a huge coincidence if human brains have the potential of understanding the nature of reality. Either we are special or we arent. It can't be both

2

aesu t1_j391ibc wrote

>upon which we build all of our technology and engineering

Not knowing what space or time "is" does not negate what we do understand. We can build stuff which works based upon it. There are known knowns, and they do prohibit alternatives. For example, no matter how mysterious space or time turns out to be, it will not ever negate the existence of the moon, or the golgi apparatus, or dna, or any other highly observed structure emerging from and existing within it. Human brains understanding of reality has nothing to do with anything. The point of observables is that they do not emerge from our mind, they are there before our minds even evolved, and will be there long after we've gone. That will be true no matter how detailed our observations have become.

I have no clue what you mean by

> Either we are special or we arent. It can't be both

3

RanyaAnusih t1_j392veb wrote

All your observations are filtered and modeled by your mind. That things work means only that you have a model that can predict, nothing more; Just because you have an equation for it does not mean gravity is any less bizarre or "explained"

Just your use of the words before and after implies an understanding of the concept of "time" which we havent.

You know, nothing is solved but there is a reason Albert Einstein had to ask his colleagues if they seriously believed the moon is not there when nobody looks at it.

Reality is just not that simple

2

aesu t1_j399cx0 wrote

I'm not talking about my observations. Of course my personal observations are subject to bias. That's why empiricisms foundation is producing repeatable, testable, independent observations.

Although many things are not observed yet, because we lack the instrumentation capable of doing so, that does not negate that which we have already observed. Planes fly. Computers function. Medicines work. Chemical engineering is possible. The nuclear bomb works. And on, and on and on. Every single invention we have is the result of repeated, independent empirical observations. You can't just say maybe everything we know about chemistry or biology, or nuclear physics is incorrect, but by coincidence, everything will build with that knowledge, works. I mean, you can, but at that point you're just rejecting any common reality. Which is fine. maybe you are plugged into a simulation, and everything is an illusion. But, if that's the case, why bother with all the mysticism and god of the gaps, and just say that.

2

RanyaAnusih t1_j39bhb7 wrote

Im also not talking about your personal observation. All of us come from the same species so of course our brains will decode reality almost the same and we will all agree. For a truly unbiased perspective, you would need a different entity. As a colorful example think of the movie Arrival if you have seen it.

That something works, just means it works. There is nothing more to conclude. Just like when a mouse pushes a lever and someone always gives it a piece of cheese after doing so

As i said, the mysticism comes from admitting thai it would be a huge coincidence if humans have access to fundamental truths just based on their limited reason and logic. We already know that there are truths that presumably escape your pets, so why assume it ends with us. That is what i mean in saying that humans are either special or they aren't; we cant just put ourselves on a pedestal of knowledge and at the same time claim we are just another animal

3

aesu t1_j39iei9 wrote

Are you suggesting all our inventions, which work, as far as we know, specifically because they were designed to work based upon our robust empirical knowledge of the physical reality upon which they work, are actually working by coincidence?

For example, genetic engineering doesn't work because our incredible, and entirely unfalsified library of empirical knowledge of chemistry and biology allows us to precisely manipulate genes to produce expected proteins, and expected results, but because by sheer coincidence all these observations happen to be entirely consistent with a completely different system, and all of our direct observations, include electron microscopy, are erroneous, while, again, being, by a coincidence in the order of quintillions to one, entirely consistent with actual reality?

Things we do not yet know about reality cannot negate what we do already know, and testably and consistently works. No matter what we learn about quantumn physics, time, space, etc, will stop chemistry from working the way we know it works. No discovery will magically change the structure or function of proteins, or the structures they form.

−1