Just came up with a though experiment while taking a shit in Burger King earlier today.
Two pepes are looking at a burger.
Does the burger exist independently of their perception of it? That is, there is a single burger that is simply viewed through different lenses.
Or does the burger only exist within the context of their perceptions and therefore the burger cannot be defined outside the scope of an observer?
No one has ever thought about this before.
Yes it exists.
>therefore the burger cannot be defined outside the scope of an observer?
Whether it can be defined or not is irrelevant to whether it exists or not.
""""""""""thought experiment"""""""""""""""""'
This is just a physicist's code word for "I don't know fuck-all about philosophy"
The burger is perhaps an illusion, no less by some evil magician. However, it reflects some reality, namely, quantity, modality, causal relation, and substance; and these are the foundational truths reflected by all images, the latter of which can either deceive or be true, but nothing can be said beyond that they reflect a subject who can be fooled, namely, me.
also fuck Aristotle
The burger hasn't been always in their view so in order for them to see it it has to exist independenty
>it reflects some reality, namely...
>substance
If we can admit that the burger only exists as representation in perception as an idea (with such things as colour being a secondary quality, not intrinsic to the proposed object, but only to the perception as such), and we can admit that an idea can have only the likeness of another idea, then surely we can say that all we are acquainted with are ideas, and never some inferred 'substance'.
Your premise is flawed. We cannot know that the two pepes are indeed looking at a burger.
>t. your boy Berkeley
But they're not looking at the burger.
read Wittgenstein On Certainty
I'm sure it has. Everything has been thought about by millions of people throughout history but I haven't read every thought ever written down.
If it cannot be defined then what is this object that apparently exists in itself even outside of our perception?
I'm not a physicist. I work in finance.
But if everyone has a different perception of it, what is this object that apparently exists in itself even outside of our perception, and how can we understand what it is?
The question is: is it a valid ontological inference from multiple instances of perception of this variously defined """thing""" to a mind-independent """object"""?
Physical objective reality is sensed and interpreted by our minds. Knowing how powerful the mind is, the burger may take all shapes and colour and certainly each interpreter will have different emotional connection to the burger depending on their past and present prejudice. and how they would want to see it, ideally seeing it the way it is is ideal to get the best and clearest picture, also shapes how they might see the burger using self-induced suggestion and rationalisation.
The burger doesn't exist.
shut the fuck up
"im sure it has"
he was making fun of you fucktard, you're asking if there is an objective reality independent of obsevation. its like asking "is god real" while postured as if its an original thought
Oh I didn't realize we had to point out irony. Sorry.
his point is that we should continue living our life as though it were real because we can never know anyway. a cop out i think.
*shuts up*
This is why philosophy is rubbish. Every school of thinkers starting with pre-socratics can give you their own unique snowflake answer to what seems to be a simple question. You can be a practical man and accept scientific/positivist view (burger exists, what you see is sense-perception of reflected photons) and done with it, or continue the sophistry about Form of A Burger and so on
>irony layers thickening
read Kant
read Schopenhauer.
actually, read Jacobi, Fichte and Schelling in that order.
What's the philosopher's argument against this?
Genuinely interested. To me science is replacing philosophy (at least epistemology and metaphysics). I mean ethics still has value but law and politics is the practical applications of ethics and thus more important.
>To me science is replacing philosophy
It can't. Science cannot answer all of the questions that philosophers ask. Philosophers can't, either, sure, but don't be misled into thinking that science is a cure-all for all of humanity's problems.
>I'm not a physicist. I work in finance.
should I invest in a roth IRA?
yes
i see. can you give me any other general advice?
This whole thread sounds like the type of conversations i have with myself when i'm stoned out of my mind and then i wake up the next day and think "wow that was fucking retarded". The answer is: the burger exists if you believe it exists it doesn't exist if you believe it doesn't exist. Your question isn't new, basically what you're saying is that what we observe is only what our brains are processing and not necessarily what is actually in front of us
>The answer is
No it's not. Or, at least, we cannot know that that is the answer. That's only one of many possible answers that people have come up with, and we can't know which one is "true."
>the burger exists if you believe it exists it doesn't exist if you believe it doesn't exist.
Holy
>If it cannot be defined then what is this object that apparently exists in itself even outside of our perception?
The exact same object it was before we defined it.
>he smokes the herbal jew
leave this place and never return
Veeky Forums is a straightedge board
If a burger falls in a forest and there's no amerifat to eat it, does it still have caloric value?
What i'm trying to say is, if you believe something to be true you have to assume it's true unless there's any reason to believe otherwise
Yes you're right i stand corrected
>if you believe something to be true you have to assume it's true unless there's any reason to believe otherwise
How do I believe that reason to believe is true enough to believe in it?
Do the Pepes even exist? Think about that.
What is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory (Collapsible Wavelength Functions) and Schrodinger's Cat?
Congrats you just posted a needlessly verbose version of "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound?" you pseud
>was fichte right?
No, that's retarded.
The existence of the burguer is defined by it being seen, by the fact that its perceived
Whether or not it 'exists' outside of perception can't be known
One pepe closes his eyes -is the burguer still there? How can you know that?
The world isn't illusory, as the outside of the illusion by definition can't be perceived -therefore illusion=reality
How can HE know that*
Fixed
>le naturalism answer XDDD
back to Veeky Forums, m8
the burger exists beyond the scope of perception. one of the first moments an infant shows of learning about the world around it is the concept of objective permanence, that when i look away, that toy train is still there. there is an objective reality, and it's amazing how many people out there are genuine solipsists, who can't even tell you woth a straight face whether or not you exist independent of them. fucking solipsism.
Pseudoscience.
What the fuck am I reading?
So if you close your eyes, the particles that make up what we call a "burger" suddenly disappear?
So if X is the only one to have seen the burger and X dies, does it no longer exist? So if X dies, and three minutes later Y walks in, there's no burger to be found?
shiggy diggy doo
Ask Wittgenstein
He's a question that'll really fuckin' blow your mind.
Do we exist outside of the perception of others?
If you think you're an A personality, but everyone thinks you're a B personality, they'll treat you as a B personality. So are you an A personality or a B personality? If who you think you are doesn't exist, then who are you? How do you define yourself, if you misclassify yourself?
Spooky.
>So if X is the only one to have seen the burger and X dies, does it no longer exist? So if X dies, and three minutes later Y walks in, there's no burger to be found?
Well, yeah, it's a possibility. There's nothing logically inconsistent about this. It doesn't make sense *intuitively* but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
>le trivializing meme arrows XDDD
He's right.
I find the idea that somehow human perception defines reality to be really fucking arrogant. You guys do realise that the universe existed for 13 billion years before first proto-humans evolved from apes, right? What, did the world not exist or or it did exist but wasn't defined property? Fuck otta here
How do you go from perceiving physical sensations like "reflected photons" to "burger"?
Inapplicable to everyday life=/=pesudo intelligence/science.
>There's nothing logically inconsistent about this
hehe
>It doesn't make sense *intuitively* but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Can literally be said about anything
I feel bad for retards then
>You guys do realise that the universe existed for 13 billion years before first proto-humans evolved from apes, right?
We only know that from evidence, gained through HUMAN senses, perception, reasoning, etc. We can't know if all of that is evidence of an objective reality beyond us. It's a possibility, but we can't know for certain.
>Can literally be said about anything
Yeah that's pretty much the point. So statements like "dude it's just so obvious" are invalid.
Holy....I want more....
If you think you're charismatic, but everyone else thinks you're an autist, are you actually an autist?
You start sounding like a solipsist madman. Lay off philosophy for a while and play some videogames.
the only reason we know all of that is because of "science", a tool invented by humans to understand the universe based on human reasoning.
Or are you going to claim that science is independent of human thought?
reality exists objectively and independently of the observer. different perspectives of the same thing are just that... perspectives.
Don't bother, he's completely blind
t,
In the same way collective Human intention makes houses appear, the burger and all of the Material world is constructed by the same process higher up the fractal rail.
>You start sounding like a solipsist madman.
So? If I found out the truth, and the truth is actually something completely insane and unintuitive, should I just deny it? That seems more insane to me.
In any case, it doesn't matter much. We all still live our lives as normal people most of the time (hopefully). The philosophical positions we hold don't necessarily turn us into madmen.
>Or are you going to claim that science is independent of human thought?
If you're going to claim otherwise you gonna have hard time explaining how human intellect came to be in the first place. If reality is a product of human mind, what constructed the mind?
Right. But it "could" happen doesn't mean "it's likely to happen" "it's a reasonable plausability we should take into consideration" or anything of the sorts. Since it's applicable to anything, I see it as more reasonable to apply a sort of "fuck outta here with dat shit nigga"-approach to it.
No offense but anyone who subscribes to solipsism is a brainlet in my book.
Some said that this is an overwinded telling of the "tree falling does it make a sound" thought riddle.
Not true, though this is overwinded and has been thought before. I believe it was expressed in the context of: "will there still be mountains once everyone has died". With the implication that a "mountain" is a constructed thought and not a "real" thing outside of an observer.
ITT sophistry
We get it, human language is imprecise, burger is a social construct filtered through our unreliable senses, we all live in a giant simulation controlled by lizardmen who in turn themselves trapped in a giant burger.
Because our perception of reality is molded mostly by our past experiences. If you see an apple you'll believe 100% that if you pick it up you'll be holding an apple, because there's never been a moment in the past where you've picked up an apple and it's turned out to be an orange. Another good example, people who where born blind and had their eyesight restored later on in life where incapable of knowing the shape of an object unless they felt it with their own hands
To answer ops question: Reality has a set off rules. However we percieve them we humans have to option but to follow those rules; we see a burger, we eat it, we get nurished etc. A schizophrenic can hallucinate all the burgers he wants to but if he doesn't eat real food he'll die
I'm going to hop on fallout and cook some gecko steaks now, thanks.
God.
Not at all. This is realism vs idealism.