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?
Posts: 980
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm


Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users