Discussion Does observation create reality?

[Mahuta ♥]

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.

How is it a key example? We can't base all this on a deaf man. Sound does not exist despite existence of sound wave because they're deaf.

Because sensation doesn't only happen in the brain it's the last stage of sensation. In fact, if I wasn't afraid of getting my self into too much detail and making a mistake..I would say the brain has nothing to do with sensation (at least the one I am referring to). To me sensation happens through sensory neurons that are everywhere in the body, so sensing something only requires the sense organ to be alright, in this case, the cochlea.

The waves are sensed and processed and even classified before the impulse reaches the brain. Sound waves end in the internal ear..if not the middle. The first sensory organ receiving the wave is the cochlea. In my opinion, it's the organ that determines if sound wave remains a wave or turns into a sound, because it translate the the wave into an impulse. So no matter how well the brain is..if the cochlea isn't working..wave will remain wave and you have no sound (this is if we stick with the sound wave is not sound). Whereas the brain could have a problem with a healthy cochlea..in which case the wave did turn into sound..but it was not perceived by our brain to define that sound for us..that's why the person can't hear anything.

Keep in mind, I am not saying the brain doesn't play a big role..I mean after all, a problem in the auditory centers make you deaf. But I am just talking about the process of sound wave becoming a sound (which is the sensation to me).

[Keel]

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)

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.

It isn't flawed if you are able to create a general definition out of it; it should be obvious that the definition is refering to humans only and in addition not everyone can hear sound waves at 20,000 Hz (the average adult can only hear up to around 15 kHz). Thus, sound is dependent on the being's ability to perceive sound, the range of sound frequency which is transformable being one of the conditions.

Because sensation doesn't only happen in the brain it's the last stage of sensation. In fact, if I wasn't afraid of getting my self into too much detail and making a mistake..I would say the brain has nothing to do with sensation (at least the one I am referring to). To me sensation happens through sensory neurons that are everywhere in the body, so sensing something only requires the sense organ to be alright, in this case, the cochlea.

The waves are sensed and processed and even classified before the impulse reaches the brain. Sound waves end in the internal ear..if not the middle. The first sensory organ receiving the wave is the cochlea. In my opinion, it's the organ that determines if sound wave remains a wave or turns into a sound, because it translate the the wave into an impulse. So no matter how well the brain is..if the cochlea isn't working..wave will remain wave and you have no sound (this is if we stick with the sound wave is not sound). Whereas the brain could have a problem with a healthy cochlea..in which case the wave did turn into sound..but it was not perceived by our brain to define that sound for us..that's why the person can't hear anything.

Keep in mind, I am not saying the brain doesn't play a big role..I mean after all, a problem in the auditory centers make you deaf. But I am just talking about the process of sound wave becoming a sound (which is the sensation to me).

Indeed the sound wave is converted after it enters the internal ear but what is it converted into? Electrochemical impulses. What are do sensory neurons rely on? Electrochemical / nerve impulses. These are just as physical as the sound wave it was derived from. My point is that sound does not physically exist as it is merely the interpretation of soundwaves / electrical impulses. I understand how you are saying that the input (i.e. the sound wave) had already entered the system and was in the processes of being transformed into sound (i.e. it was converted into electrical impulses) but it is the output that is what creates the existence of sound (i.e. the brain's interpretation of these signals to construct a reality within ourselves which we project out into the world).

Therefore, if you take the two situations you mentioned - (a) sound waves are not transformed into impulses; and (b) the brain fails to interpret these impulses - sound still does not exist to the deaf man because he simply lacks the ability to perceive! If (a) and (b) occured simultaneous, you can send as much sound waves or electrochemical impulses you want through the deaf man's ears and through his nervous system but the deaf man will still not be able to interpret these. Thus, as I said before: the deaf man scenario is a key example of how a physical reality can exist without us being able to interpret it.

However if only (a) occured then you could bypass the conversion from sound waves to electrical signals by directly inputting electrical signals. In this situation the man would be able to interpret these signals and he would indeed hear sound.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Keel

[Silence]

5. Why is “illusion” maybe not the right word to describe the reality we perceive?

Illusion isnt a good way of describing the reality we perceive because the word illusion has a negative meaning and hints towards the idea that what we perceive is false or wrong. In my opinion what we perceive is merely incomplete, or shall I say - we only perceive a small piece of reality. But then again, what we perceive can be argued to be a 'construct' of the mind.