Where an observer observes an observer, the observed is an object to said observer.
Fundamentally; are there only observers?
I’m a people watcher. I find them to be interesting. And I’ve observed those who I have observed observing other people.
I actually got a few dates as a result of that.
Unless I am mistaking your use of the word “fundamentally”, I myself don’t see it that way. The observed is just as important as the observer to the observer - as a scientist would observe his experiment. Maybe the way to answer that question would depend on the nature of the relationship - observer and observed.
But maybe that didn’t answer your question.
If a physicist’s observations of a photo causes that photo to react in a certain way, can one not also say that the photon is also the observer - looking back at the observer? 
That’s so cool.
And didn’t Freddie say that …And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
Figuratively speaking, I have found that to be true.
object (n.)
late 14c., “tangible thing, something perceived or presented to the senses,” from Medieval Latin objectum “thing put before” (the mind or sight), noun use of neuter of Latin obiectus “lying before, opposite” (as a noun in classical Latin, “charges, accusations”), past participle of obicere “to present, oppose, cast in the way of,” from ob “against” (see ob-) + iacere “to throw” (see jet (v.)). Sense of “thing aimed at” is late 14c. No object “not a thing regarded as important” is from 1782. As an adjective, “presented to the senses,” from late 14c. Object lesson “instruction conveyed by examination of a material object” is from 1831.
Lol yes, though naturally the meaning here is something more fundamental.
The rest of your post didn’t answer the question, excuse me for not saying what i was referring to ~ i am always doing that, though i had thought it succinct.
Consider two fundamental particles, one observes the other and in doing so makes an effect upon it. They are both doing that because all particles have the property ‘observation’. Both would in observing the other define the state of said other, such that the act of two or more observers is manifesting the state of ‘being’ or objectness.
In other words, particles become manifest [as they are repetitively doing all over the universe/multiverse] by the act of observation. Or, observation = form/object.
_
Amorphos
Me too.
Yes, I understand that. It works the same way with people.
Yes.
Now go a little deeper than that.
Only observers in the range of what? Humans? Things that we might call alive? Or all things that exist?
Arc
Are you referring to the objectification of individuals? Because yes, we are not objects, the body and brain is, but the consciousness is the subjective observer and not an object.
cheegster
See above, i am referring to the fundamental nature of existence ~ particles observing, and asking if the act of observation is what makes the observed into an ‘object’. Ergo there are no actual objects except in the eye of the observer, or there are only subjective observers which in the act of observing one another makes objects.
In addition to op…
‘The movement of one observer relevant to another = momentum’? Where the body of the observed is the object, the created object is the form of momentum, hence all physical things have both object and momentum bodies.
At any one time, there can only be one observer, because only a single person can actually realize he is observing objects. that individual is the self. We can only hypothesize about any other mind, it is only the singular mind that can propose that ‘I am observing’
Observation necessarily is a connect between perception and cognition, and that is the seed that Descartes planted. to disagree with this, is to claim that one person can be Ina perceptual, semantic and cognitive sync with someone else. maybe this limitation will be overcome between a sunc established between man and machine, like in a perfect cyborg. This is perhaps the need to establish the world where singularities will be no longer the product of necessary connections, but evolve into the societal mix of contingent and imminent group think.
this is happening, but when it does, everybody will be at once, and simultaneously both : observed, and observer. the distinction will devolve, and the existence of individuality will no longer be a motive or a plan. This may yet become the primary evolutionary plan.
Here i am speaking more fundamentally and not personally, though perhaps we could be speaking about both…
My message/question states; you have two observers ~ where we can think of this as the aspect of fundamental particles which observe, as with relativity., and the act of said observation ‘realises’ one another as objects in each others eye. Then my last post put forwards that in the same way [to the behaviours of particles] momentum is also manifest.
If we did separately attempt to realise this notion in terms of conscious observers, then how can they observe without there being an object of observation? its akin to seeing in the dark. In other words, the act of observing is between two entities, an observer cannot not observe without the property of the observed.
I think we need to understand reality in terms of behaviours, especially at the fundamental level. If true our observing as conscious beings is composed of multiples of said behaviours, though that doesn’t mean that ‘looking/seeing’ ~ being an act of the instruments of the brain, is the same. It does mean that the instrument is being fed information correctly at base level i.e such that we see and perceive the world and indeed our own thoughts!
Ok. On that fundamental level, an unrealized issue is apparent in the two slit optic experience, where interference effects seem to suggest a prototype of elementary intelligence, where the patterns imply some elemental level of subatomic intelligence where at times the resulting pattern mimic wave, at other times particle behavior. At this level there may be indications that the personality of the self my have corresponding actions of behavior. This has been suggested.
So perhaps consider the ‘refresh’ aspect of the equation. Analogously your pc monitor displays info, goes black ~ stops to get new set of information, prior to displaying the next image on the screen. This has been likened [and i concur] to how the universe deals with its informations, and as such the quantum effects you describe are perhaps less [i state] a perception of how physical quantum objects work, but instead are a set of sub-quantum behaviours.
As the blank screen in universe terms has no physical computer behind it retrieving information, we cannot denote the quality of physicality or objectness to the informations and behaviours at that level of reality/preceding physicality.
I’d ask, which comes first, the universe of composed objects, + its behaviours and informations [also behaviours], or the composing pre manifest [before becoming an object] informations?
I think we have to say the pre-quantum informations and behaviours [observation is also a behaviour as are forces and polarities] are primary, otherwise you have to instead have an object as primary?! …And change of/to that object [which presumably would be impossible due to said objects singularity] then occurs how? It seems like an infinitely regressing argument, because you need behaviours/information to make any change to an object.
_
It is infinitely regressing, as Strawson, and Russle have experienced in either side of the spectra. This regression into whatever it is in consciousness that Youmay want to define as the pre reflexive with its own set of rules, a plasma of undefinable and absolutely regressed non matter, may yet still exhibit the intelligence or intelligence likeness, in the very most basic level. I debate the suggestion, however , which comes first, I would imagine it is as within, as without times pace at an near absolute’s limit.Once that limit is reached, it could not become an absolute, since it’s probably axiomatically impossible to reach that state. Therefore, if You define that as God, then it is an imperfect God, at least in exhibiting it’s existential qualifiers. It’s manifestation, is inherent in those qualifiers, there is noting beyond or behind that, since that would entail an absolute singularity. An absolute singularity could never afford that kind of state, unless it could escape the confines of absolute bounded ness. the ideal as ab absolute, bound meaning, has been transcended by limiting that idea to within an infinitesimal proximate to that ideal. that is enough to set the stage for being to existence. The absolute being is a nothingness from which no escape is possible. that is hell.
A contemporary novel reflecting similar metaphors can be read in Laszlo Krasznahorkai’s ‘Siebobo there Below’. I was surprised how close the analogy of a closed circle manifests in this novel.
I’d expect them to be comparative and correlative. The ‘plasma’ info has the same reality as the physical info, in much the same way as the image on your pc monitor has the same reality as the information to which it derives. For an information or behaviour at one level you need the exact correlative information at the other. A physical behavioural information must have its conceptual or some other kind of pre-[physical]informational information.
I’d suggest that pre-information [let us call it] is not conceptual nor behavioural information, neither mental nor physical. This because we do have duel parties in reality. In-fact i think we thus have trinary informational parties, pre-info + conceptual and behavioural/physical information types.
These are the three kinds we observe in the world, no?
Accepted that it is ‘axiomatically impossible to reach that state’. I agree it should be pointed out that before and after are relative positions. Yet for classification purposes such to define our reality and to denote some approximation as to the parties, we have to separate it all up some how.
In the lateral perspective there is a before and after, the pc monitor is blank before it can show the image of the information it has. The refresh rate of a universe [maybe in a multiverse] would be blank before displaying its information. This is self contradicting because reality is fundamentally non-lateral.
The universe has a curve, one which i cannot describe, but somehow stretches between our notions of finite and infinite. Even if our notions are imperfect, reality is somehow making that curve. Perhaps the curve between informations is the reality? The thing between the infinite and finite, where those two concepts don’t themselves have any reality apart for informational.
I don’t see this as an abyss. But it would be if reality was the information.
_
An observer onserves how an observer observes an observer who observes how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes …
That’s more iterations of the same thing, observers aren’t like infinite mirrors imho, because the act of observing changes the two or more parties. Hence you get relative differences e.g. respective to direction and force; analogously we can imagine observing particles as like balls bouncing off each other at various tangents and speed, each with a given effect respectively ~ though its not actually exactly like that.
Only responding to the op, Amorphos. So I hope noone’s said what I’m about to say.
Last night when I was asleep, I had a dream about my own consciousness. Told me about the lack of inherent existence - did I truly exist, or was it all a projection on me? Was I the form, or was I a formless form with the form imposing itself on my bloblike spiritual essence? The electroatoms in my brain, giving me form. But do I have an inherent spiritual form, it feels like even as formless the blob has form of its own blobness.
Are my parents the absolute truth? We dont have empirical evidence to go by, we just have gut feelings. It feels like I am special. It feels like I couldnt just be rebirthed as some random suburbanite faggot when I die, that I will rebirthed into someone special, that my parents feel like absolute truths. But I dont want to live this same life again. I hate everything.
Nothing makes any goddamn logic anymore.
If I can see blue in my own brain, is blue the absolute because xrays could = blue but blue is xrays, blue is blue. There could be an inherent need to percieve, that blue will impose its blue pengas on the world, i am the world, the spiritual infinite finite entity which is compressed but not compressed trapped inside my earthly brain.
I cant tell whether somethingness or nothingness is more hell. Is pain nothingness or somethingness, well it seems like a repetitive somethingness, is boredom nothingness or somethingness, well it seems like stress which is somethingness, is unconsciousness nothingness or somethingness, seems like nothingness, but it don’t exist. Flow is it something ness or nothingness, flow is heaven but is it somethingness but aint it nothingness or is it nothingness. what is hell is it the c fibres
realisation seems to be stepping back. step back to see the scale, images form from the pixels. God comes in when he says “This form is better than that one. C fibres are pain, this image is good, water is good and flow is good. Why because I said so”
behavoirs, movements are a product of stepping back, u see the motions rather than the frames
its all an illusion
events all go back into the mud in which they came
some times id imagine myself and body dissolving into the water, my eyeballs floating about
you think, THIS DAY WILL BE DIFFErENT
I WILL GET SoMEWHERE
But you never get anywhere, its back where u started, same day as before
Same day as before, just with a new randomized bit of flavors…
a procedurally generated reality…
There is no getting anywhere, its all slidding back down the cliff
sinking into mud…body becoming one with the dirt…
simply orgasmic
Entities do not need to be sentient to love them. Free will is the curse of the land, the ego delusion, the apple from the serpent of eden.
if an entity is in your consciousness, you are that entity. like a dream, when u see people in 3rd person, u feel like you are them. But when free will is in the picture, entities seem out of your control, so u dont feel like u are them anymore. When someone is dead, a part of you is dead. it doesnt matter if they were ever sentient. You are god pplaying with your toys. When toys dont do what you want, you get mad, they are broken toys. but perhaps you made them that way or perhaps you didnt make them at all, perhaps they really are broken. perhaps the toy maker was unconscious and didnt even know what he was doing. but just by observing that person, you are that person. only reason u feeel yo arent is because they have a delusion of free will. it s a powerful delusion, you can actually convince someone to feel pain if you keep hammering it to them certain ideas. Like if the toy treats you as if you are not sentient, when you are sentient, you can feel as if you are worthless, as if the toy has power over you more than you do. Its almost Godlike, with no logic other than spiritual logic - Pain is pain because I said so, and theres no empirical explanation for it - c fibres give you pain simply because i say what pain is and pain is pain.