Discussion Does observation create reality?

[Keel]

Does Observation Creat Reality?

Main WoK / AoK: Sense Perception

Minor WoK / AoK: Emotion / Science, Mathematics

Key words: consciousness, observation, reality, senses, perception, relativity, infinite probability

Please have a look at the following video:

- A very good video on sense perception

This video may excite many of you physicists and chemists out there. But, the importance of this video in relation to ToK is the the physical or chemical aspects of atoms or quantum theory. The most important thing you should take away from this video is an understanding of how sense perception is constructed from a physical reality; that although sense perception is a product of physical reality, it does not represent the full physical world.

If you are looking for the main message of this video or if you don’t understand it very well, listen to what the monk and the lecturer have to say at 5:44, 7:02 and 7:26 for a concise summury.

Knowledge Issues and Questions:

1. How are our sense perceptions useful and what are their limitations?
   
2. To what extent is it possible to obtain knowledge of reality through sense perception? Distinguish between physical reality and conscious reality.
   
3. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
   
4. How does reality change when sense perception is changed?
   
5. Why is “illusion” maybe not the right word to describe the reality we perceive?
   
6. Debate: If we can never know absolute reality or if everything “an illusion” or “a mental construction”; is there any point of pursuing reality?
   
7. Are you a consciousness within reality or are you reality within a consciousness?
   

Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality.

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.

---

How does this work?

There are no limits to discussion apart from the topic title and that it is related to ToK. All the resources above are there to try to start discussion; by all means contribute your own of you find anything different or interesting. The knowledge issues and questions are there for you to respond to. When replying to a particular question remember to quote it so others can see what you are responding to. if you wish to add your own, simply follow on from the last numbered question and label it in your post. e.g.

4. How does reality change when sense perception is changed?

Response...

8. Can it be true....?

Response.........

Once some of these questions are attempted we can roll into more interesting discussions.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Keel

[dessskris]

sorry if this is sort of off-topic, but I think observation kinda has to go together with faith... as in you have to believe in what you sense without knowing whether it's really true. for instance, in Chemistry, did anyone really see atoms: protons, electrons and neutrons? or did they just believe that atoms exist?

[Keel]

sorry if this is sort of off-topic, but I think observation kinda has to go together with faith... as in you have to believe in what you sense without knowing whether it's really true. for instance, in Chemistry, did anyone really see atoms: protons, electrons and neutrons? or did they just believe that atoms exist?

Scientific observation (usually done through measurement) occasionally requires faith but if you talk about observation from a sensory point of view I dont think it requires a lot. For example, it wouldn't require a tremendous leap of faith for me to state that the computer I see infront of me exists. However, I believe that the faith aspect comes from the built in belief systems in our minds. From a small age we have been taught (by others and by ourseleves) that the material world around us exists and what we see, smell, hear ect. is real.

Would the computer still exist if I left the room though?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Keel

[dessskris]

Would the computer still exist if I left the room though?

I see where you're hinting at -- if we don't see something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. but then in this case, you can go into the room and see that the computer is indeed there. but what about atoms? I believe that these things in front of me should contain atoms, but I can't see them no matter how close I look. even the microscope doesn't help.

[Award Winning Boss]

Would the computer still exist if I left the room though?

That's just faulty perception... or should i say heightened perception. Babies think things do not exist if they are covered because they are extremely dependant on their eyesight. As time carries on they begin to learn that the object continues to exist. Just because we learn something it doesn't mean that isn't reality.

What i think is that reality can be relevant to other people because what they've experienced is different from the person next to them. If you base reality purely on perception and take away knowledge then in theory, nothing is real and nearly everything can be imaginary. That's going back to be baby thing.

If someone is starving then reality to them is that. If they were to hear that you can eat all you want for a bit of money then to them that doesn't exist. However, when they learn something then that becomes reality.

My mind is melting, i don't think i'm making sense lol

[Keel]

Would the computer still exist if I left the room though?

That's just faulty perception... or should i say heightened perception. Babies think things do not exist if they are covered because they are extremely dependant on their eyesight. As time carries on they begin to learn that the object continues to exist. Just because we learn something it doesn't mean that isn't reality.

What i think is that reality can be relevant to other people because what they've experienced is different from the person next to them. If you base reality purely on perception and take away knowledge then in theory, nothing is real and nearly everything can be imaginary. That's going back to be baby thing.

If someone is starving then reality to them is that. If they were to hear that you can eat all you want for a bit of money then to them that doesn't exist. However, when they learn something then that becomes reality.

My mind is melting, i don't think i'm making sense lol

I think we're on the wrong track with this computer problem. I don't think the issue is to do with a difference in the interpretation of reality between people. I think it is more to do with the difference between our personal reality and the reality outside our brians (whatever it is out there). The issue can be simplied to: 'Can something exist without being perceived?' How can you justify the existence of something when you cannot percieve it?

[Award Winning Boss]

I think we're on the wrong track with this computer problem. I don't think the issue is to do with a difference in the interpretation of reality between people. I think it is more to do with the difference between our personal reality and the reality outside our brians (whatever it is out there). The issue can be simplied to: 'Can something exist without being perceived?' How can you justify the existence of something when you cannot percieve it?

Yes. that's where reason and anecdotal evidence comes into play.

the tree example. It is now known to be logical that the tree makes a sound regardless of whether someone is there to experience it. you don't need to hear something for it to make a sound. Whether the tree exists is a different question. How would one know if its fallen without ever perceiving it through sight? you can't take one factor out of a thought experiment and expect the others to fall into place.

However if we are looking back to the first cause, first person whatever, due to lack of anecdotal evidence, proof from other sources then no, things that aren't perceived cannot exist relative to that person.

[Keel]

the tree example. It is now known to be logical that the tree makes a sound regardless of whether someone is there to experience it. you don't need to hear something for it to make a sound. Whether the tree exists is a different question. How would one know if its fallen without ever perceiving it through sight? you can't take one factor out of a thought experiment and expect the others to fall into place.

However if we are looking back to the first cause, first person whatever, due to lack of anecdotal evidence, proof from other sources then no, things that aren't perceived cannot exist relative to that person.

I personally would have to disagree with you. For sound to exist you would need to perceive it. Sound is generated through the vibration of particles in the air. The tree would have an effect on its surroundings and there would be energy transfer from the tree to the environment; I am not disputing this. What I am trying to get at is the idea that sound is a construct. We perceive sound from the vibration of air molecules i.e. an external factor is detected by our auditory receptors, a message is sent to our brain via electrochemical impulses and our brain manufactures sound.

A good example to demonstrate this would be the following: If I had a machine which can produce vibrations in the air at 30,000 Hz (a really high pitch which is beyond the human range), we can transform the tree question into: ‘If the machine is switched on, does it create a sound?’ The answer is no; there is no sound to hear.

The same applies to the tree problem. If there is no concious being who can hear the tree fall when it does, then tree does not create a sound.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Keel

[Award Winning Boss]

I personally would have to disagree with you. For sound to exist you would need to perceive it. Sound is generated through the vibration of particles in the air. The tree would have an effect on its surroundings and there would be energy transfer from the tree to the environment; I am not disputing this. What I am trying to get at is the idea that sound is a construct. We perceive sound from the vibration of air molecules i.e. an external factor is detected by our auditory receptors, a message is sent to our brain via electrochemical impulses and our brain manufactures sound.

A good example to demonstrate this would be the following: If I had a machine which can produce vibrations in the air at 30,000 Hz (a really high pitch which is beyond the human range), we can transform the tree question into: ‘If the machine is switched on, does it create a sound?’ The answer is no; there is no sound to hear.

The same applies to the tree problem. If there is no concious being who can hear the tree fall when it does, then tree does not create a sound.

I understand your point but I have made the point regarding our knowledge to the situation. The sound does exist because of the scientific knowledge behind the situation. You must have witnessed the tree falling down in order to know it has fallen right?

Plus I've also made the point about reality being different relative to the person.

If you had never been abroad before but someone told you people exist across the sea, does that mean that isn't reality? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't stop it from existing.

Plus throughout what you've said it seems that the meaning of sound changed. Firstly it was vibrating particles in the air then it changed to someone hearing said vibrating particles.

[Keel]

I understand your point but I have made the point regarding our knowledge to the situation. The sound does exist because of the scientific knowledge behind the situation. You must have witnessed the tree falling down in order to know it has fallen right?

Plus I've also made the point about reality being different relative to the person.

I am not discussing whether the tree did indeed fall or not. For us to exlore the idea of sound you must assume that (a) the tree does exist, and (b) that it did fall. Secondly, what scientific knowledge are you talking about. In my opinion there is a difference between 'sound' and 'sound waves'. When the tree falls it generates sound waves; but how can you call this 'sound' when there is no one to transform these sound waves into such a thing?

For example, if a deaf man stands next to a tree which falls down next to him and there is no one else in the area. Did the tree make a sound? I think we can safely say that it produced sound waves but since there was nothing to percieve those sound waves there was no way of generating sound. Sound waves are physical, sound is a mental construct based on the physical world and how we interpret it.

If you had never been abroad before but someone told you people exist across the sea, does that mean that isn't reality? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't stop it from existing.

Plus throughout what you've said it seems that the meaning of sound changed. Firstly it was vibrating particles in the air then it changed to someone hearing said vibrating particles.

This is not a valid point and is going off topic as it starts to rely on reason. You are simply generating an extra layer for the information to be transfered. Person A must have been able to see the people on the other island before he is qualified to tell Person B that such people exist. Thus the people on the other island still must have been seen/percieved at some point to be able to exist in the realities of Persons A and B.

With regards to me changing the definition of sound, I don't think I have and hopefully I've made it clear to you what I mean above.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Keel

[Award Winning Boss]

I am not discussing whether the tree did indeed fall or not. For us to exlore the idea of sound you must assume that (a) the tree does exist, and (b) that it did fall. Secondly, what scientific knowledge are you talking about. In my opinion there is a difference between 'sound' and 'sound waves'. When the tree falls it generates sound waves; but how can you call this 'sound' when there is no one to transform these sound waves into such a thing?

For example, if a deaf man stands next to a tree which falls down next to him and there is no one else in the area. Did the tree make a sound? I think we can safely say that it produced sound waves but since there was nothing to percieve those sound waves there was no way of generating sound. Sound waves are physical, sound is a mental construct based on the physical world and how we interpret it.

This is not a valid point and is going off topic as it starts to rely on reason. You are simply generating an extra layer for the information to be transfered. Person A must have been able to see the people on the other island before he is qualified to tell Person B that such people exist. Thus the people on the other island still must have been seen/percieved at some point to be able to exist in the realities of Persons A and B.

With regards to me changing the definition of sound, I don't think I have and hopefully I've made it clear to you what I mean above.

You have changed the definition of the word 'sound' unintentionally. With what you're saying they mean two different things.

I think you're ignoring my point about relative existence. or missing it would be the better choice of words. The sound may not exist to the deaf person but it still exists. sound are waves vibrating through the air. you know what sound is, you've said in your argument. What I want to emphasise is that sound still exists relative to science instead of the person.

Let's say that we changed the time period and out knowledge is extremely limited as to we do not know why sound is sound. Then in their frame of thinking sound does not exist without perception. However since a time period wasn't specified I'll assume we're talking about now. This means that increased knowledge means we know it still makes a sound regardless of whether we've heard it or not.

[Keel]

You have changed the definition of the word 'sound' unintentionally. With what you're saying they mean two different things.

I don't think I have. Maybe you have combined 'sound' and 'sound wave' into meaning the same thing?

Sound: Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound)

Sound wave: A longitudinal pressure wave of audible or inaudible sound. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound+wave)

I intentionally ignored your point because it didn't make any sense if you apply the definitions to what you have said. In the deaf man scenario, the sound waves exist (physical); sound (mental) does not.

You keep going on about knowledge. I do not think knowledge is very important in this discussion simply because you can percieve things independently of the knowledge you already have. The pre-secondary school me had the same ability to transform sound waves into sound as I have now, yet I can safely say that I have expanded my knowledge in that time. Knowledge does not change your sense perception. That is one of the reasons why I think it is irrelivant.

[Award Winning Boss]

For sound to exist you would need to perceive it. Sound is generated through the vibration of particles in the air.

Do you now understand my point as you how you've changed the meaning unintentionally? one means sound equals perception. The other are sound waves. I appreciate you clearing up your point however.

Knowledge does not change your sense perception. That is one of the reasons why I think it is irrelivant.

Does that mean you still get fooled by a game of peek a boo? knowledge does change the way you understand your perception. If you were still as uneducated now as you were when you were a baby then you would think your parents have disappeared when they cover their face. Unless that still happens I don't understand your point.

your new point clears up what you've said. Thanks however I wonder why we're the only people discussing this.

[dessskris]

going back to the title of the thread, does observation create reality? if we didn't hear the tree fell, does that mean in reality there was no sound? no...

actually I agree with AHiddenName and don't get what Keel is trying to say.

[Award Winning Boss]

going back to the title of the thread, does observation create reality? if we didn't hear the tree fell, does that mean in reality there was no sound? no...

actually I agree with AHiddenName and don't get what Keel is trying to say.

Keel is basically saying there's a difference between sound and sound waves which means sound is not the same as a sound wave.

That's it from what I've seen just simplified. whether I agree with that point of view is evident

[dessskris]

that's it?

I'd perceive the two as one same thing tbh.

[Award Winning Boss]

Sound: Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound)

Sound wave: A longitudinal pressure wave of audible or inaudible sound. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound+wave)

Looking at that definition , I think that it is flawed. Does that mean dogs do not hear sound? rather just sound waves? (i am separating them because you have done so yourself .) It's just linking back you my point of relative existence. if something doesn't exist to someone, it doesn't mean that it does not exist.

that's it?

I'd perceive the two as one same thing tbh.

well ask for yourself I guess I'm not speaking for him

[Mahuta ♥]

I see them as one two. However..a thought just came to me..

That may not be true if we say 'sound' is only sound if it stimulates the nerves in our internal ear, which creates that senstation. So a sound wave only becomes 'sound' when it's received/sensed by the nerves. It stays a sound wave if there's nothing to convert it the wave into a sensation like an ear or a machine they invent (that acts like an ear). So if there's absolutely nothing to convert it..it just remains as a sound wave..not sound. This would apply if we say, a sound is only a sound when I convert the wave sound into one and it's perceived by my brain as a sound ( no matter what that sound is).

THEN AGAIN..we could say we don't have to be the ones to convert a wave into a sound to make it one. It could be anything at all. So basically, we could say, if there is nothing to prove that there is absolutely nothing that could convert a wave into a sound..the tree falling will make a sound..we just don't receive the wave.

[Mahuta ♥]

You have changed the definition of the word 'sound' unintentionally. With what you're saying they mean two different things.

I don't think I have. Maybe you have combined 'sound' and 'sound wave' into meaning the same thing?

Sound: Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound)

Sound wave: A longitudinal pressure wave of audible or inaudible sound. (http://www.thefreedi....com/sound+wave)

See that's why I said, that depends on your definition of sound and sound wave. Also that could work if we're only talking about humans!

---

I intentionally ignored your point because it didn't make any sense if you apply the definitions to what you have said. In the deaf man scenario, the sound waves exist (physical); sound (mental) does not.

A deaf man cannot be discussed in this situation at all! Deafness could be a result of something wrong in the internal ear (where the nerves are) or the brain. So in a deaf man situation, we could talk about sound or sound wave! Sound, if the problem is in the brain, because the sound wave was received by the nerves in the internal ear and converted into a sensation (which is the sound), but the brain wasn't able to identify it or do anything with it..so they cant hear anything. Sound wave if there's something wrong with the ear itself, in which case the sound wave remained sound wave even after it reached the ear. Bottom line, lets not talk about deafness anymore.

[Keel]

For sound to exist you would need to perceive it. Sound is generated through the vibration of particles in the air.

Do you now understand my point as you how you've changed the meaning unintentionally? one means sound equals perception. The other are sound waves. I appreciate you clearing up your point however.

Yes I guess that was poorly phrased. However it does not make it untrue. Sound is still generated through the vibration of particles in the air - it just requires an additional step which is the brain's interpretation of those vibrations.

Knowledge does not change your sense perception. That is one of the reasons why I think it is irrelivant.

Does that mean you still get fooled by a game of peek a boo? knowledge does change the way you understand your perception. If you were still as uneducated now as you were when you were a baby then you would think your parents have disappeared when they cover their face. Unless that still happens I don't understand your point.

There's a difference between your ability to percieve and your ability to deduce things from what you percieve. My ability to percieve has changed very little in the past 15 years but my ability to deduce things from what I percieve has changed a lot. The idea of "being fooled" requires the brain to process what we percieve and to draw conclusions from it; this was not discussed.

A deaf man cannot be discussed in this situation at all! Deafness could be a result of something wrong in the internal ear (where the nerves are) or the brain. So in a deaf man situation, we could talk about sound or sound wave! Sound, if the problem is in the brain, because the sound wave was received by the nerves in the internal ear and converted into a sensation (which is the sound), but the brain wasn't able to identify it or do anything with it..so they cant hear anything. Sound wave if there's something wrong with the ear itself, in which case the sound wave remained sound wave even after it reached the ear. Bottom line, lets not talk about deafness anymore.

I dont see why the deaf man can't be discussed. It is a key example of how the sound wave exists in the physical reality but sound does not.

But you raise an interesting issue with the scenario where the problem is with the brain. Just one question: How can you call it a 'sensation' if the brain doesn't feel anything? Because as I see it anything the brain does not sense can't really be called a sensation.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Keel