Who said it existed for I00 000 years? Humans. What does such a human knowledge statement entail? It is the dialectic result of subjective observation and subjective interpretation feeding back on one other - the understanding of what I4 billion years “objectively is” relies on human subjective understanding - it is reflective of a time dynamic that for all we know only makes any sense from within the human subjective framework… which is subject to potentially improve, potentially shedding truer light on what “I4 billion years without subjects” really means. What if we later realise the nature of an error in perception of time that nullifies the subjective understanding of the objective independent of the subject? The fact may remain in tact but reinterpretted in an improved form of subjective understanding where there is no contradiction between subjectivity and objects apparently existing independently when thought of in that old outdated way.
I have no objections to the claim that according to current human knowledge, our best explanation is that objects must have existed for I4 billion years before any subjective mind ever existed to perceive it.
I’m not going to quote the last three replies, but rather respond to the sense of them.
If objects cannot exist without subjects (and a computer is certainly an object), then this suddenly becomes a theistic thread. (Intelligence never began and will never end)
God. Right?
Actually, I have extremely compelling disproofs of such a being, but actually, an all loving god is certainly not a reality I would despise.
The problem is…
I despise this reality. It’s violating my consent against my consent, every moment of every day.
One thing that is true of all subjects, is that nobody wants their consent violated against their consent ever. If they agree that they do, then we can easily state that they are not mentally competent. For if someone says this, they just gave the universe permission, in a nanosecond to send them to hell forever. Not a rational trade off for a nano second.
So this is a law.
So the question is “if this is occurring to me now and has my entire life, how can I reasonably assume that this won’t happen to me forever, given that all existence is subjective?”
There is no logical connection at all between consent violation and being sent to hell
The Universe does not care about these things because its sole function is to exist and nothing else
Hell is an imaginary concept created by human minds - it has nothing at all to do with the Universe
1.) Consent violation against consent is the definition of hell.
2.) hell exists. It not only exists, as Shakespeare said in a paraphrase, the universe is greater than all of your philosophy. Meaning, there is genius of hell, that not only has never occurred to you, but as you suffer eternal torment, will never occur to you. I know. I’ve been to hell.
Mental hell does exist although only for the ones experiencing it at the time
A real hell that souls suffer in for all of eternity however is pure imagination
Nah.
The above is common sense but not philosophically true.
The point is the object and subject co-exists and co-create reality that enable reality-as-it-is to emerge spontaneously.
Here is on example of spontaneous emergence - Einstein Mask in 3D; youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ
To insist the common sense perspective is the truth or absolute truth is purely due to one’s psychology.
Note Hume’s explanation that the common sense of causation, i.e. cause and effect [that one marble caused the other to move] is due to psychological based on habits, customs and constant conjunctions.
You’re still not understanding that I don’t consider subjects to necessarily have minds (nor that “mind” is anything specific to animals). The dead bodies are still subjects, the atoms are subjects, the opposite sides of the closet are subject to each other.
An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively ‘ruling out’ all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] Despite the “observer” in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word “observer” implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the “observer” to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[3][4][5] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics
The Sky is red, all squares are circles and my pet elephant wrote this message!
Do you think you can prove me wrong?
Well you can’t…
Let me show you how this sausage is made:
I’ve defined red to mean blue, circle to mean any object subject with 4 corners and I call myself “my pet elephant”
You can’t win a language game… it produces only losers.
Nah, that’s just like solving a crypto quiz in th paper.
Once the substitution is known, it’s still easy to communicate. That’s why on this board, we make people define their terms in really technical arguments. Instead of assuming we’re all using the same definitions.
“So you’re linguistic token for blue is red, ok, let’s assume that and go from there”
Well it’s only subjective that everyone on earth needs to drink water when they’re thirsty, to survive a maximum of two weeks.
If everyone NEEDS to do it, it’s not subjective, but rather, objective!
“Well, I don’t need to drink water to not die of dehydration” (as they’re drinking water in front of you)
“It’s just subjective that you think you’re seeing me drink water right now, I’m really not”
So… there’s a meta analysis of this:
Men need to conspicuously consume rationality to appear fit sexually to a female.
Females don’t have a motive for self contradiction, they are evil just for evils own sake. You probably could assign a motive, that females don’t want to be caught for being so evil, so they gravitate to self contradiction (subjectivity) for that reason.
The short of it is, this behavior can all be explained on a meta level, objectively.
You have to educate everyone on what it means to assert dominance so that self contradictory people feel self conscious. This era is the renaissance of self contradiction because of the feminist movement.
That’s why we have to go through these inane discussions, because self contradiction, cannibalizing rationality is the ornate mating behavior in this species.
They’re not debating to get to the truth, they’re debating to get laid. Higher stakes for most men.
I want to back up a bit, that may have been unclear.
I’m not against women’s liberation. However, in stating that, as we moved forward with womens liberation, the biggest problem with women was never voiced, (while we’ve all been told the problems with men) and because of this, we have effectively destroyed the earth.
Women look specifically for self refutation as a sign that a male is more fit.
Had we addressed that globally, we wouldn’t be in this shitstorm right now.
Female sexuality fractures community. Community is dependent upon non contradiction.
That’s what I meant to say …
Now, in saying that, males are responsible for their acting out just as females are for only picking those males.
If you know about afterlives as I do, and you look deeply into this problem, you realize that almost everyone dropped the ball here, so, it’s prudent if you care about others, to develop systems that bypass the sin here… I.e. Hyperdimensional mirror realities
Btw, I would NOT claim to be a subjectivist inclined to subjectivism.
Note;
There is no Yin without Yang within reality-as-it-is.
Just the same as there is no subjectivity without objectivity and vice-versa.
Thus I am not a pure subjectivist but rather a subjectivist-objectivist in complementariness.
The glue that reconcile the two dichotomy subjectivist versus objectivist is Critical Philosophy.
Kant was once a hardcore rationalist [reason prevails over all] until he encountered Hume as a hard core empiricist [experience prevails over all] which then awoke him from his dogmatic slumber stuck to reason alone.
After his 10 years of dogmatic slumber Kant awoke to reconcile the dichotomy with Critical Philosophy and reconciled the “is” and “ought”.
It took Kant [one of the greatest W philosophers of all times] 10 years and I took 3+ years full time to understand Kant. Most are stuck in the default of objectivity prevails and it is not easy to get out of the default [due to initial].
Note Kant [para rearranged, edited],
It takes a lot of hard work to free oneself from the illusion because the default is so instinctual and ingrained via 3 billion to 6 million of evolutionary solidification.
In any initiation attempt, one will be blasted with initial, cognitive dissonance, activated defense mechanism and pains and thus one will normally fall back to where one is comfortable.
