Are what we see as concrete objects merely an illusion of our brain chemistry...

Are what we see as concrete objects merely an illusion of our brain chemistry? I would like to hear some philosophical thought on this subject.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No, they're actually there.

By what philosophical branch do you find that authority?

Science.

So logical positivity

you are not small enough to slide through

Couch science in whatever nonsense-words you like.

That's why I said branch, I am not a science denier

Saying that 'science' is 'logical positivity' is clouding the word with nonsense. Science is science: knowledge.

Donald Hoffman says in true reality there are no spatial dimensions or time, thus no objects as we perceive them. They are illusions created by evolution to make us function in a reasonable way that correlates with survival and breeding.

How can we perceive those non-objects if there are no dimensions in which to do the perceiving?

The simpler, and therefore correct, explanation is that humans have evolved to perceive quite clearly and simply the objects, space, and time which actually exist.

>How can we perceive

Because we need to

>those non-objects

They're non-imaginary so somehow real but also not what we perceive. Reality beyond our perception is inconceivable.

> How can we perceive
That wasn't the whole question, and you know it wasn't.

> Donald Hoffman says in true reality there are no spatial dimensions or time, thus no objects as we perceive them.
This is nonsense as perception cannot happen without those said dimensions anyway.

> non-imaginary so somehow real
Yeah, I'll be sticking with science, thanks.

Science is nonsense, though.

Our brain chemistry tells us that it is there. That doesn’t mean it’s not actually there

>science is science: knowledge
That’s not what science is, friendo. Science is the pursuit of knowledge

...doesn't brain chemistry fall under "concrete objects"?
unless you mean actual concrete

The pursuit of knowledge is knowledge, friendo.

And it's in the word: scientia, knowledge.

You're typing on the product of it.

Yes, science is nonsense.

>the pursuit of knowledge is knowledge
Lulwat
Based on what?
Knowledge is understanding. If you’re pursuing understanding, then you do not understand it yet.

It's a circular logic.

Some would argue that 'knowledge' and 'understanding' are two different things.

Science is knowledge and the pursuit of it: one can't pursue a branch of science while not retaining what one had to base that pursuit on. Indeed, 'how to pursue' is knowledge: The Method, which is science itself.

Knowledge without understanding is just information.
Knowledge is the result of science and scientific pursuit.

>This is nonsense as perception cannot happen without those said dimensions anyway.

Exactly. We need spatial dimensions and time for our illusion of a reality.
Both break down at the quantum level.

>Are what we see as concrete objects merely an illusion of our brain chemistry?
No. Other people and animals can see them too.

>Both break down at the quantum level.
Who told you this? Deepak Chopra?

We have the 'knowledge' that black holes exist, that doesn't mean we understand them. Or the human brain, or any number of things.

> Knowledge is the result of science and scientific pursuit.
I know. That was my point.

Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

>illusion of a reality
When will this meme die? Reality is not an 'illusion', it is literally the opposite of it.

> Both break down at the quantum level.
This is pseudoscientific nonsense.

Our reality *is* that of Bohr and Heisenberg, etc. Just because we can't 'see' it, does make it 'unreal' or 'illusory'.

*doesn't

My guy. Listen. Here’s the literal definition of Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

So you're saying a particle can't be in two places at the same time?
If not, how does that not break down the idea of space and time?

I'm not denying that, nor was that my point.

To say that reality is an 'illusion' because of Heisenberg's Principle is nonsense. Heisenberg's Principle *is* our reality, not some 'illusion'. That humans cannot perceive this uncertainty does not mean we need to invent some alternate reality.

Yeah, I still don't see how that disproves my point.

>So you're saying a particle can't be in two places at the same time?
It can't, that's drawing conclusions out of quantum physics that don't actually follow from what we know.

ok guys, please give me some background on this uncertainty principle. As far as I know, particles can't be in two places at once, because of electromagnetism. Quantum waves can coexist but so what, when they turn into particles they are in separate space.

So you're now saying that humans don't perceive reality correctly because of brain chemistry reasons and this applies to uncertainty principle?

You're mistaken.

>You're mistaken.
Show me an actual observation of *particle* being in two places at one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

>The emergence of an interference pattern suggests that each particle passing through the slits interferes with itself, and that therefore in some sense the particles are going through both slits at once
That's not quite what you claim and there's the whole wave vs particle question to be resolved.

>Science is science: knowledge.
Science is observation. What if these observations are based on illusions?

>it's a &Humanities tries to be Veeky Forums and fails spectacularly episode

That was I was trying to get at op, there is always a presupposition to knowledge (that is why I used the term branch). Logical Positivism is just one line in a long row of philosophical branches.

>implying the other people and animals are not also illusions

That would have to be a pretty good illusion, to keep the recognition of the object by you and another observer separate.

t.bill nye the vagina hat guy

OP status: REK'D

How was I rekt

The fact that you can touch them, hit them, get damaged by them, yeah they're real.

reality in itself apart from your apprehension of it is a lot less regimented and not divided up in the way you experience it (this is well established by philosophy and science over the past several hundred years)
the categories through which you view the world are to some extent arbitrary (vague, indeterminate, relative, incomplete, flexible, etc.)
still, they have to be based on real similarities and differences between things which exist independently of you

Realism has already been debunked my good friend. By the scientific method no less.

>realism has been debunked
anti-realism is incoherent though
how could our awareness of reality be all there is? reality must precede any awareness of it, otherwise there is nothing to be aware of

Only if you're presuming we live in a physical reality in the first place.

how does my point depend on that at all?

Because it's assuming that there is a reality there to sense independent of the mind. There isn't. It's a mental construct.

>its just a fuckin dream bro just fucking smoke some weed man its just a dream everyones an NPC lmao

if your so sure that the world isn't real then jump off a cliff and test it yourself

i'm not assuming that, i'm concluding it
reality must precede consciousness, otherwise there's nothing to be conscious of

also, reality must precede consciousness because otherwise consciousness would have no metaphysical foundation and thus it couldn't possibly exist, but that's a different point

>otherwise there's nothing to be conscious of
Only if you presume physicalism is true, which it isn't. Your entire thoughtline is based on an incorrect premise, that there must be a reality independent of the observer to observe. That is not true.

it doesn't depend on physicalism at all, and i am not a physicalist
it only depends on the premise that consciousness must be consciousness of something

As soon as we can create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality, it is going to be really stupid to argue reality is actually real.

that seems like the thing that would make the question of what is real most pressing
you're talking about living in the matrix and not giving a shit what's real

Read transcendental aesthetic you slob

Your perception is what you experience, and that is entirely internal. But it is also entirely stimulated by external sensory information, generated by objects that do actually exist.