The observed is the object in an observers eye_II

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The observed is the object in an observers eye_II

‘to observe’ is an objects utility of having and attributing value. If we take any two observers, one observes the other from all perspectives, this because you cannot make a full observation of an object without looking at it from all sides. The fully painted picture reveals an empty canvas, but by observing all around an object an observer can take a value based on its own perspective and an estimation of the object compared to that. Let us imagine that observer ‘a’ is a person and ‘b’ is a rainbow, the world sees the whole rainbow but it cannot draw all things from all perspectives, ergo it draws it from a given perspective ‘a’.

all particles in the universe are making all observations [like in QM] and ending up with transparency as the full picture, but ‘drawing’ value from the perspective based picture.

An observation is like a cycle, if we imagine an arrow rotating around the observed as an observation is being made, then value is drawn from after that and the observed has moved slightly, all of which means physicality is representative.

What is the fundament of experience,. is that not also observation? I’d say that the universe is experiencing itself.

Or is ‘being’ the fundament of all things; In some sense for a thing to exist it must have being, where the next integer or expression of being is experience – self observation. If,To have individuality there must be an observer observing itself, > do we only know our individuality as the impression we make upon others reflected back?

This suggests to me that our origins as beings are not singular, ~ ultimately like an ‘atom of beingness’ which grows into an infant, then an adult. The real terms scenario appears to be more of a space becoming spatially located via reflection, a centralisation and focussing of mind/being. Beingness must surely occur where there exists the fundamental things it needs to sustain it, in organic life or conscious robots/androids. It and consciousness, will be generated things.

Death would be; ‘to degenerate’. Like wind vaporising into the air.

…however, there is the means by which something can be brought into being ~ centralised [of oneness], and that must be within your continuum such for you to manifest. …as well as nature and man providing the physical means to that.

There needs to be nature and an eternal observer, or more, that which can become an observer. That’s the trick!

_

2

The “object” is an speculation. what we do have in the stipulated “observed” is the immediate experience of the observer.

3

ok, but ‘an experience’ is also an observing. At the fundamental level, a particle will be reading another’s value, even though there are limits to how much it can do that. By observing from all directions you get all the shadows missed in the previous look [instance of observing]. Ergo one particle ‘knows’ another such to experience that other, but that’s a process. An experience is manifest of the measure of the degree in which an observer knows another.

I think existence is fundamentally the same as thought, in that they both behave like that.

4

Hello Amorphous

I would say than an observation cannot be detach from an experience, as both imply an elapsed time. An observation implies the concept of an other but does not guarantee how real that other actually is. The observation might be 100% real to that person’s mind and be conceived as an other, while in reality it is an internal observation without a corresponding Reality. Sometimes observation of effects lead to a concept that we are experiencing an other that exceeds the direct observation. For example, my direct impression at this moment is of reading a post, but my indirect observation is that it is a post made by another person. That “object” is an speculation based on how I transact with the world, how I interpret the world. It is my judgment about the stream of consciousness that gives meaning and reality to it, and even to my “self”. In a way that is how we “know” but I am careful to place limits about what it means to know. If what you mean is that we have direct correspondence with an Other, well I guess I am just open to the possibility that we can be wrong sometimes.
That said what we mean in our language has to be considered and I think that how we use “know” is enough to justify the naive and simple use of “know”.

I agree that existence is fundamental, but not thought. My experience implies existence of some kind, but we have no evidence that thought is as fundamental as existence. Sometimes we forget something others remember. Does that mean that we did not exist since we have no residual memory of what we thought?

5

and yet reality is a problem to be solved!

something had to think of all the principles by which things work, and it has to do that prior to their existence. it might not be thought, but it is something which can figure stuff out, and it does that without any stuff.

6

Hello Amorphos

Only when posited as a problem by certain human minds and that is when they put on their philosophy hats on; otherwise, at least for me, Reality is implied in my existence, not a problem in need of a solution. Accepting certain limits to what can be known is enough for me. Gravity is a bigger problem really…

That’s a conjecture. You are assuming that the principles or laws of physics or whatever else, requires some design when you simply cannot rule out the opposite. For example evolution could be conceived as a blind process or as something that requires the postulation of something (or someone) to think up the principles to make it work, but we are left with no direct observation to decode which is which. If that something is God then existence is eternal and so would have to be the principles. Consider then, as a possible narration of Genesis, Creation as a process of differentiation-- the One becoming many and yet each thing depending on the Reality of the One. When man finally arrives into the cosmic scene of creation, it is his task, the task of consciousness, or better yet the “flair” of consciousness to give names to “things” which might be, from a cosmic perspective, all One. The One, by itself, is One, but from the human consciousness the One is multiplicity. The expansion into time and space creates “things”, but neither time nor space is eternal, if we believe that they could have come from the One.

7

I stopped reading after you said this.

8

omar

I see your point, nature could unfurl so to say, and principle and laws just happen because of that. But then nature needs some way to configure that first instance. You wouldn’t for example consider that nature didn’t already have newtons third law, prior to the force moving in an opposite direction of the first force, in the first instance of that [that would be a patent contradiction in nature].

9

Conjecture

you complain and say you hate it and yet its what you do aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the time! if you don’t agree with something you need to say why - especially on a philosophy forum.

conjecture
kənˈdʒɛktʃə/
noun
noun: conjecture; plural noun: conjectures

an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

_

10

I make my conjectures based on logic and reason.

The “logic and reason” behind this particular conjecture of yours is:
1.‘to observe’ is an objects utility of having and attributing value. Nonsense words and definitions.
Could be better written as - “to observe is the experience of an object having substance.”

2. If we take any two observers, one observes the other from all perspectives, false

3. this because you cannot make a full observation of an object without looking at it from all sides.
Since the object is defined as “what it is” and not it’s full sides, what you see is essentially it’s "full sides’ (2 dimensions.)
Since full sides can never be “seen” only known because of the following principle.
A 3d object is a mental abstraction an idea connected by the span of time and consciousness and the fact that consciousness is not a point but a glow thus allowing you to psychically know what the “full sides” of an object should be, but never see them since vision is 2 dimensional.

11

That’s a stupid reason though; your conjectures are ok because you have a good reason inside your own head? no wait, its because your conjecture is better than others #-o :laughing:. Unless you say why, then the inquirer cannot know what you mean.

Nope, it was fine as it was, in relativity observing is what attributes value to the observed, and so another particle observing that observer, would be the thing denoting its value. Your sentiment suggest observers experience? And beside, observing is is the act of measure of one particle upon another – in relativity.

you mean ‘is false’ [thought my grammar was bad lol]. That may be true and would have been a good point! I was considering the notion that to arrive at a value – if e.g. there were only two observers in the first instance of things, then they would have to observe each other fully, a bit like how particles aren’t static in atoms but ARE moving around each other. Electrons even disappear on part of their course/cycle around the nucleus.

12

Marking this as word salad and moving on.

Relativity IMO needs better words.
I wouldn’t say a wall reflecting photons is an observer and I wouldnt say a camera is an observer. Camera’s are not sentient.
I replace their word “observer” with “affector”. They are “affectors”. Something can only observe if it has or had experienced the substance.

Why would they have to observe each other fully?
If I know person named Sam exists, to I have to be with her every second of her life, until the day she dies, so I can observe her from every side even the four dimensional ones to get to know her fully? Otherwise I can’t arrive at a "value’ (whatever that means reminiscent of Jakob’s Vo(B.O.)?)

13

Hello Amorphos

We cannot know that such necessity exist. What nature “needs” or not can only be guessed, not known.

Well, here you bring one of the issues we have to deal with, which is that in the end science, at its limits, suffers from the same problems as religion. The Laws are limited to the number of instances involved. Any generalization may or may not be true. If you believe that x number of instances speak about a necessary condition, valid at all times, then you have left empirical science and have begun to travel towards metaphysics. Today some speculate that the speed of light, crucial for a lot of other scientific theories, might not be a constant. So what else might also not be a constant? Gravity, magnetism, who knows…It is only a contradiction in the mind that assumes that such is the nature of reality rather than a description of what the universe had become.