Does a tree exist if no one is there to observe it?

[Dadface]

Most people would say that common sense tells us that the tree did make a sound,some may argue that it didn't and yet others may describe different scenarios.If the situation is such that absolutely no evidence can be gained then whatever view is taken is unproveable speculation.

 

[kote]

Let me give a different point of view on this - I actually wrote a philosophy thesis chapter about this question (the thesis was on QM). Skimping on the sourcing I'll quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the Copenhagen Interpretation:

Bohr no longer mentioned descriptions as being complementary, but rather phenomena or information. He introduced the definition of a “phenomenon” as requiring a complete description of the entire experimental arrangement, and he took a phenomenon to be a measurement of the values of either kinematic or dynamic properties.

According to complementarity, it does not make sense to ask if a sound occurs without being heard. This is akin to asking for an electron's position when it isn't interacting with something - it simply doesn't have one. Sound is a type of phenomenon, and as such, can only exist in a complete experimental setup. Sound is subjective. It is how one's mind interprets compression waves in the air. Without a working set of ears and a capable nervous system, you only have compression waves.

Take the question in slightly different context: is an apple red when no one is looking at it? We have been told that color is an extrinsic property. Color requires many things including proper lighting. When we say that an apple is red, what we really mean is that given proper lighting, a person with normal vision will see a red color when looking at the apple. Even in this case, we still have the problem that we have absolutely no idea whether or not we experience the same thing when we claim to be seeing red. Maybe what I see as red appears to you as green. There is no way to tell.

The point is that sound, like color, is a subjective phenomenon that can only manifest given proper experimental conditions. An apple is not red per se, but it has the ability to manifest a red color in my perception given the right circumstances. Likewise, a tree falling does not make a sound per se (although it does make compression waves in the air), but the event of a tree falling has the ability, given the presence of a person with a functioning auditory nervous system, to manifest the perception of a sound in that person.

This, of course, is only a complementarity reading of the question. The answer I gave is philosophically and physically consistent. You could present a similarly philosophically and physically consistent answer which says that the tree does make a sound. Our physics is not so well defined regarding quantum mechanics that we can answer the question definitively. The real answer to the question is that it depends on your assumptions. A deeper understanding of which assumptions are at play and the other implications they have requires more study of QM. I believe Neils Bohr, however, would have answered your question in the negative - no sound is made.

 

[BobG]

Take the question in slightly different context: is an apple red when no one is looking at it? We have been told that color is an extrinsic property. Color requires many things including proper lighting. When we say that an apple is red, what we really mean is that given proper lighting, a person with normal vision will see a red color when looking at the apple. Even in this case, we still have the problem that we have absolutely no idea whether or not we experience the same thing when we claim to be seeing red. Maybe what I see as red appears to you as green. There is no way to tell.

The point is that sound, like color, is a subjective phenomenon that can only manifest given proper experimental conditions. An apple is not red per se, but it has the ability to manifest a red color in my perception given the right circumstances. Likewise, a tree falling does not make a sound per se (although it does make compression waves in the air), but the event of a tree falling has the ability, given the presence of a person with a functioning auditory nervous system, to manifest the perception of a sound in that person.

Given that the apple doesn't generate enough visual light for a person to see, but that it reflects primarily red light while absorbing other colors, is the apple still red when it's sitting in a dark room? Is it still emitting infrared light even though a human is in the room instead of a snake? Is the apple still sitting on the table even though only the bat in the room can detect the sonar signals bouncing off of it?

Worded this way, I think the first question is better than the "If a tree falls in the woods..." question. The second and third would be equivalent, except with a snake and a bat substituted for a human. Those compression waves will have an effect on the tree's surrounding environment whether a human is the observer or something else is the observer. I guess I don't have a huge conceptual conflict with the original question, but setting up a situation where the sound doesn't exist winds up becoming too ludicrous to take seriously.

In fact, with the proper sensor and a substituting visual colors for infrared frequencies, the exact same info a snake receives can be received by a human, even if it takes a little work. Sure the hot spots aren't really red and the cool spots aren't really blue, but the relevant info has been passed none the less.

 

[kote]

Given that the apple doesn't generate enough visual light for a person to see, but that it reflects primarily red light while absorbing other colors, is the apple still red when it's sitting in a dark room? Is it still emitting infrared light even though a human is in the room instead of a snake? Is the apple still sitting on the table even though only the bat in the room can detect the sonar signals bouncing off of it?

Using the framework I described above (primarily Bohr's), no, an apple is not red (how it's normally meant) when sitting in a dark room. In fact, an apple is not red at all. Saying that an apple is red is a linguistic simplification when the situation really is that an apple has the ability to manifest the sensation of a red color in the mind of a proper observer. It's extrinsic vs intrinsic. Subjective perceptions, regardless of their connection with physical events, are conceptually nonphysical things. Hot or cold, colorful or grayscale, loud or silent - these are not objective properties of things or events. They each depend absolutely on the particular nervous system of their observer (among other factors).

Is an apple red? Ask my colorblind uncle. Did the tree make a noise? Ask my deaf brother. Etc. These things are very distinct from the underlying physical situations involving relative mean kinetic energy, relative electromagnetic frequency intensities, and potential compression waves. Setting up situations where particular expected perceptions are not realized is quite easy, and I've just listed a few. I don't agree that it is ludicrous.

With regard to snakes or bats, what reason do you have to think that any snake has ever seen red? In fact, "http://www.clarku.edu/students/philosophyclub/docs/nagel.pdf" " I never claimed that a bat could not detect an apple. I claim that, given Bohr's assumptions, a bat does not see the red of an apple that I see. Red is a perception that the apple manifests in me but not the bat. It is not an intrinsic objective property of the apple but rather an ability that the apple has when I'm around.

Conceptually, the only relevant difference between colors and sounds are that colors typically belong to objects and sounds typically belong to events - that's why philosophically it's often easier to consider colors. As perceptions though, neither can exist without a subjective observer. I don't think this is where the situation gets tricky. We're simply discussing classically extrinsic properties.

Where QM comes into play is that experiments have shown us that location, momentum, polarization, etc, have no higher ontological standing than color, sound, or even meaning. Classically we have a distinction between the perception of red and the frequency of the EM waves. QM shows us that the properties of EM waves are just as context dependent and complementary as the subjective perception of color is. QM shows that position and mass are not, in fact intrinsic and persistent properties of an electron. We've proven that an electron does not always have a defined position or mass, and that the property that manifests itself depends explicitly on the context of the measurement.

This is where the stuff hits the fan. We had no problem with extrinsic properties before, but now we realize that every classical property is extrinsic. So we have two choices here. We can accept this fact, as Bohr did. We can say that extrinsic properties are fully real and there is no underlying intrinsic (hidden variable) level of reality. I prefer this view. It allows us to say that color, sound, and the meaning of these words are just as real as position and mass. Understanding that all properties are in fact context dependent also allows Bohr to consistently say things like "the apple is real" with it being understood that a red apple cannot exist in a (metaphorical) vacuum and the apple is not red in all situations.

The other option is to go Bohm's route and deny that sound, color, mass, position, or polarization are basic and real properties. We can claim that there is some underlying and yet unknown explanation using properties we have no conception of. According to Bohm's view, yes a sound is made, but sound is not real, it is a macroscopic approximation of the real properties at play. Bohm went as far as to say that there is an infinite regress of deeper layers of complexity and that we cannot in principle ever truly speak of real things since they are unknowable. I prefer not to let solipsistic epistemological issues destroy any hope of a true ontology, but this is an aesthetic choice. Both options seem to be consistent with logic and experiments.

Woah, sorry for the length! Sometimes philosophy needs it, and the intelligent reply got me going .

 

[BobG]

Did the tree make a noise? Ask my deaf brother.

That would be a good idea. Sound waves travel through other media besides air. Your deaf brother could well sense the sound of the tree falling even if he doesn't perceive sound the same way a hearing person would.

The same idea behind a human observing infrared light with an infrared sensor and artificially translating different infrared frequencies to visual light frequencies.

Is it the method in which the info is interpreted that's important or is it the information that's important?

The color of the apple in a dark room affects the actual information, not just a difference in how the info is received and processed. (In the case of colorblindness, a sensor that would translate the affected frequencies to a different frequency could be used similar to the infrared frequencies - the info is still there.)

If the process of hearing is more important than the information received by hearing, then, "No", there is no sound if there's no human to receive it, there's no sound if the human didn't bring his dog with him (since the dog will hear some frequencies from the fall that the human is incapable of hearing), etc.

If the information transmitted by the sound is more important, then, "Yes", there is sound as long as the sound energy exists and there is something, anything, living or inanimate, to receive and be affected by the information.

 

[kote]

That would be a good idea. Sound waves travel through other media besides air. Your deaf brother could well sense the sound of the tree falling even if he doesn't perceive sound the same way a hearing person would.

The same idea behind a human observing infrared light with an infrared sensor and artificially translating different infrared frequencies to visual light frequencies.

Is it the method in which the info is interpreted that's important or is it the information that's important?

The color of the apple in a dark room affects the actual information, not just a difference in how the info is received and processed. (In the case of colorblindness, a sensor that would translate the affected frequencies to a different frequency could be used similar to the infrared frequencies - the info is still there.)

If the process of hearing is more important than the information received by hearing, then, "No", there is no sound if there's no human to receive it, there's no sound if the human didn't bring his dog with him (since the dog will hear some frequencies from the fall that the human is incapable of hearing), etc.

If the information transmitted by the sound is more important, then, "Yes", there is sound as long as the sound energy exists and there is something, anything, living or inanimate, to receive and be affected by the information.

Except I've already made a distinction between sound (the sensation) and compression waves . That's why it's usually easier to concentrate on color. A deaf person can sense compression waves and tell you that you probably would have heard something had you been there, but that's not the same as hearing. It's similar to a colorblind person telling you a stop sign is red.

It's amazing how one's interpretation of QM is intimately entangled with one's philosophy of mind. Physics, of course, is only concerned with "information" conveyed by experiments, but this avoids Chalmers' hard problem of qualia. It ignores the subjective. There is a difference between pretending to perceive something and actually experiencing it.

I believe that there is something that it is like to be me. I'm not just an empty machine reporting on colors and sounds. I have a real subjective existence in which the color red exists independently of (though usually caused by) EM waves. I have more information when I perceive a red stop sign than the colorblind man who is told the sign is red. This leads me, as discussed, to saying that the tree doesn't make a sound.

To accept that the tree does make a sound, which you can do, you must also accept that a colorblind person who is told all of the details about the color of a sign has just as much information as someone who actually sees it, which you might also do. I claim that he will always lack knowledge of what it is like to perceive a red sign.

 

[kote]

Our last two posts said very similar things I think. To sum up, I'll say that communication is necessarily lossy when it comes to subjective experience. The best we can do when communicating experience is to use analogy. The best Merriam-Webster can do for "red" is "being in the color range between a moderate orange and russet or bay." When pressed for a definition that doesn't reference other colors you would have to say something like, "red is the color of a stop sign."

There is no possible communicable definition of red that is not circular. Red can only be known by direct experience and talked about by analogy. Unless, of course, you are satisfied that the dictionary definition of red is complete and blind people can know red as well as I can.

 

[Coldcall]

I'd like to add an alternative to the interpretations posted so far re: "does the tree make a sound".

We seem to forget that everything on Earth is entangled through interactions and shared experiences. Just because the human is not around to witness the sound of the tree falling does not mean it did not make a sound. However that sound if not heard by a human, certainly does not make the sort of sound a human would expect from a falling tree. The local observers, being insects, birds or whatever other biology in proximity to the falling tree would experience their own version of what "sound" occured. It migh not have anything to do with sound, but it would notice something has changed.

So that tree cannot make a "sound" as we know it, without a human with ears to witness the event. This is a basic fact.

If one takes an observer-centric view of qm (as i certainly do) then the question is defining what constitutes an observer able to collapse a wavefunction. In my view all biology qualify as observers simply because they have a) sensors b) information processing abilities.

So the tree might make a noise but not one would we identify as a tree falling. Does an ant have human-like ears? No, of course not. So the sound or vibrations it would experience are not the same as ours.

Hence the tree did not make a noise as we understand it, because without human ears nearby to witness the event, the tree falling noise has not entered our consciousness, other than after the fact when we get to the forest and see a fallen tree. We may be able to imagine what it sounded like falling, but no human witnessed the event.

The event happened according to all the biology which was present at the time but we have no right to say it made a "noise" as we know it.

 

[JRDunassigned]

Could one not simply put a sound and visual recording device in the forest?

Nobody is around to see it, yet when they recover the data, it will be there.

 

[Evo]

Could one not simply put a sound and visual recording device in the forest?

Nobody is around to see it, yet when they recover the data, it will be there.

That would be the simple solution to prove that it does make a sound, that can be captured, absent of all life, and then replayed. When this question first came up, no such equipment existed.

But my youngest daughter, that likes philosophy, keeps telling me that's not the point of the "exercise" it's supposed to make you think differently, or something. I stop listening to her when she goes into "philosphic mode". People have been arguing this forever and to no point.

 

[Q_Goest]

Hi Evo,

That would be the simple solution to prove that it does make a sound, that can be captured, absent of all life, and then replayed. When this question first came up, no such equipment existed.

But my youngest daughter, that likes philosophy, keeps telling me that's not the point of the "exercise" it's supposed to make you think differently, or something. I stop listening to her when she goes into "philosphic mode". People have been arguing this forever and to no point.

I'm afraid your daughter is correct... <sorry> There really is a point to this exercise, and the word "exercise" is a pretty good way of describing it. The point is to consider a phenomenon which occurs inside your head. That phenomenon is the phenomenon of qualia, also called "subjective experience". As we've already seen in this thread, explaining what this phenomenon is all about is very difficult to get across, even to scientific advisors. <sorry BobG, don't mean to pick on you> Qualia is a phenomenon which occurs inside a human brain. It isn't something that occurs outside of a brain as near as we can tell. So the point about there not being any sound if no one is around regards this strange phenomenon called qualia.

To explain what this phenomenon is, I think I have to agree with kote here:

Except I've already made a distinction between sound (the sensation) and compression waves . That's why it's usually easier to concentrate on color.

The exercise as applied to sound waves is a bit more difficult to gasp for all the reasons kote provided. Consider color instead. Does a red stop sign have any physical property that is red? Certainly the stop sign has measurable, physical properties and amoung these properties are the various wavelengths of light that are reflected off the sign and enter your eye. The spectrum of light that your eye absorbs contains photons across a broad range of wavelengths. We can measure the wavelengths and frequency of the light. We can measure the intensity or amplitude. But does that spectrum of light that your eye absorbs also contain the measurable properties of red? The very simple answer (or is it a complicated answer?) is no.

I'm sure you know all this except perhaps for the punchline, but for the sake of clarity, I want to go through how the phenomenon we call qualia come about in the brain. If you look at what your body does with this wavelength of light, it first has some cones in the back of your eye that have chemicals inside that react with specific wavelengths of light. Those cones are actually a type of neuron, and they can transmit a type of chemical/electrical signal (ions) to their neighboring neurons. Those neurons receive numerous signals such as these from various other cones and perhaps other neurons as well. These neurons pass that signal along depending on now the neurons are wired together and how many signals they recieve. So really, there is no light being passed along, it is just neurons passing those signals along through your brain. The signals go from your eye back into various parts of your brain and bounce around and your brain creates a phenomenon from all these signals that we understand as color. Color is a "subjective experience" because it is the experience we have when light of a given wavelength interacts with the cones in our eyes. If we had a different number of cones, such as bees or birds have (they have 4 different cones instead of the 3 humans have) then we would presumably experience different colors, because birds and bees can distinguish the difference between various spectrums of light that we humans can't. Is this to say that humans can't experience the 'actual' color? nope... because there is no 'actual' color. Color is a phenomenon that is created by the brain, it isn't a property of the light itself. In other words, these things we experience are called qualia, and they are representative of the real world, but they are not the real world itself. They only represent the world for us humans, and if we were Martians or birds, with different genes and different senses, we would experience the world in a very different way. We might consider for example, what our subjective experiences would be like if we were some other animal or intellegent species. Those subjective experiences (qualia) would likely be very different, but just as useful in representing the world for us.

Similarly, the noise we hear isn't a property of the compressed air waves. The noise we experience is a subjective experience that exists only inside our heads. It isn't a property of the air at all. Sure we can record it and play it back and it sounds the same, but that's not because the properties of the phenomenon we experience inside our head (called qualia) is being recorded. What is recorded is a symbolic representation (digital or analog) of the sound waves that can be converted back into sound waves using a speaker which vibrates the air in exactly the same way that the air vibrated a microphone. The point is that if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around to experience it, then yes it creates the same vibrations in the air that it would had someone been standing there. But the whoosh and the crash that our brains create would not exist and would not be created by the falling tree.

 

[Evo]

Hi Evo,

I'm afraid your daughter is correct... <sorry> There really is a point to this exercise, and the word "exercise" is a pretty good way of describing it.

True. She is quite advanced in philosophy, although she was devasted when she entered college. She had such a great philosophy teacher in high school, that she was ecstatic about taking philosophy in University. Her professor in philosophy at her university was so bad, that she actually withdrew. She was devasted. She thought that she would get deeper into it, and instead it was a huge step back.

 

[JRDunassigned]

True. She is quite advanced in philosophy, although she was devasted when she entered college. She had such a great philosophy teacher in high school, that she was ecstatic about taking philosophy in University. Her professor in philosophy at her university was so bad, that she actually withdrew. She was devasted. She thought that she would get deeper into it, and instead it was a huge step back.

This is the strange state of American University, and a common phenomena across various fields of study. Education needs an overhaul.

But back to the point, I think this little argument about the true creates a hole of thought that questions whether or not philosophy and physics can exist when taken to their greatest lengths - they seem to differentiate so far apart that it conjures images of science as a whole and religion as a whole, beating each other up.

 

[Q_Goest]

True. She is quite advanced in philosophy, although she was devasted when she entered college. She had such a great philosophy teacher in high school, that she was ecstatic about taking philosophy in University. Her professor in philosophy at her university was so bad, that she actually withdrew. She was devasted. She thought that she would get deeper into it, and instead it was a huge step back.

wow... sorry to hear that. What university is she going to? Curious to see what the staff looks like there.

I'd think if she really liked philosophy that much she could find a university she enjoyed though. Perhaps it has to do with the views expressed by the prof? I could definitely see that happening, I'd quit myself if I had to listen to Dennett. <blah!>

 

[Evo]

wow... sorry to hear that. What university is she going to? Curious to see what the staff looks like there.

I'd think if she really liked philosophy that much she could find a university she enjoyed though. Perhaps it has to do with the views expressed by the prof? I could definitely see that happening, I'd quit myself if I had to listen to Dennett. <blah!>

It was quite devastating to her.

But she was accepted pre-med, so she moved on, although I am NOT allowed to discuss philosphy because I am too black and white.

 

[SDetection]

If a tree falls in the woods...and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?...

Of course not. It wouldn't make a sound in any one's head .

 

[WaveJumper]

What is a 'tree' before measurement/observation? Waves of probability? Or waves of substance? The measurement problem is inextricably connected with the answer to the question - If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

 

[SDetection]

What is a 'tree' before measurement/observation?

Note that the tree is already observed by the earth, and the Earth is observed by the tree, and the Earth is observing us, the moon, the sun, the galaxy...

 

[WaveJumper]

Note that the tree is already observed by the earth, and the Earth is observed by the tree, and the Earth is observing us, the moon, the sun, the galaxy...

This says nothing about the system before going from a superpositional state to a mixed state.

 

[SDetection]

This says nothing about the system before going from a superpositional state to a mixed state.

I'm not good at physics, but is there a tree that exists in superpositional state?, or you mean an imaginary tree?.

Also I think the measurement/observation depends also on the observer. When you touch a tree that you're looking at, you still observing the same tree but from different perspectives. The same situation applies if you use an infrared camera. The perspectives can change but the dimensional knowledge obtained is from the the same thing.

 

[WaveJumper]

I'm not good at physics, but is there a tree that exists in superpositional state?, or you mean an imaginary tree?

No, not just a tree or a bush. The whole of reality is depicted by wavefunctions, describing probability amplitudes of localising 'particles'. What those wavefunctions represent is the core of the argument - If a tree falls in the...

There are good reasons to believe they aren't real and are just a mathematical tool(objective reality does not exist), but there are also reasons to believe there is more going on than mathematics before a measurement(debate is still ongoing). Otherwise, the tree exists as a probability wavefunction that sort of maps out around the tree(soaks into the space around the tree - a sort of blurred image of a tree if you need a mental image).

The wavefunction accounts for everything that we can measure, so it is obviously linked to what we call 'physical reality'. How else could QM be relevant for physical properties and phenomena?

An unbiased treatment of the problem of objective reality in the 20th and 21st century, requires that it is treated by physics as a hypothesis that needs to be proved.

Also I think the measurement/observation depends the observer. When you touch a tree that you're looking at, you still observing the same tree but from different perspectives. The same situation applies if you use infrared camera. The perspectives can change but the dimensional knowledge obtained is the same.

I don't see what you are saying here.

 

[SDetection]

I don't see what you are saying here.

I mean, the mechanism, that you use for the observation, also determines your final perception of the observed. There can be different perspectives of the same thing, like when you use your eyes, and when using an infrared camera. This is of course from classical point of view...

 

[SDetection]

Of course not. It wouldn't make a sound inside any one's head.

But of course nature would hear it, in its own mysterious way .

 

[baywax]

Existence is relative to the observer? If the tree doesn't exist because you don't see it nor measure it etc... then the dust mites in your eye lashes don't exist either. This seems a bit egocentric to believe. Why not step out of the box and allow for phenomena to exist without your permission?

 

[WaveJumper]

Existence is relative to the observer? If the tree doesn't exist because you don't see it nor measure it etc... then the dust mites in your eye lashes don't exist either. This seems a bit egocentric to believe. Why not step out of the box and allow for phenomena to exist without your permission?

Every physicist asks this question sooner or later. Some are asking themselves to their dying day, some consider it only as a passing thought and dismiss it as an issue that cannot be resolved. Others are afraid to even look in that direction and will frantically move onto the next topic.

I believe a problem should be approached without bias. The biggest missing link towards having a better understanding of reality, imo, currently resides in the notion of Time(on top of other foundational problems). We have different concepts of time in classical mechanics, in GR and in QM and time is a fundamental ingredient in what we call 'reality'. Without some new insight into its nature, this 'reality' may remain unknowable for quite some time. If time is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon, then we have no basis to insist on space being objectively real either. There is likely something 'wrong' with our perception of the notions - matter, time and space and the hypothetical TOE will supposedly adjust these 'misunderstandings'. Afterall, the theory of evolution doesn't claim our senses evolved for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, so we can't blame our senses for being too coarse to discern how reality operates at its fundamental level.

To wrap this up, there are good reasons to believe that the notion of "real" and "reality" needs re-adjusting in a moderate or a rather radical way. Those reasons all come from cosmology, quantum theory and GR. The only field from physics that supports all our naive assumptions about reality, is classical Newtonian physics where it appears the environment had wired our brains to operate within that domain.

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

 

[baywax]

Every physicist asks this question sooner or later. Some are asking themselves to their dying day, some consider it only as a passing thought and dismiss it as an issue that cannot be resolved. Others are afraid to even look in that direction and will frantically move onto the next topic.

I believe a problem should be approached without bias. The biggest missing link towards having a better understanding of reality, imo, currently resides in the notion of Time(on top of other foundational problems). We have different concepts of time in classical mechanics, in GR and in QM and time is a fundamental ingredient in what we call 'reality'. Without some new insight into its nature, this 'reality' may remain unknowable for quite some time. If time is strictly a macroscopic phenomenon, then we have no basis to insist on space being objectively real either. There is likely something 'wrong' with our perception of the notions - matter, time and space and the hypothetical TOE will supposedly adjust these 'misunderstandings'. Afterall, the theory of evolution doesn't claim our senses evolved for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, so we can't blame our senses for being too coarse to discern how reality operates at its fundamental level.

To wrap this up, there are good reasons to believe that the notion of "real" and "reality" needs re-adjusting in a moderate or a rather radical way. Those reasons all come from cosmology, quantum theory and GR. The only field from physics that supports all our naive assumptions about reality, is classical Newtonian physics where it appears the environment had wired our brains to operate within that domain.

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

Nice look at the way people either believe the tree exists when they aren't looking or not... etc...

Personally I believe that forewarned is forearmed or whatever the saying is. That way, even if you don't see the tree you are aware that it may be falling on you, and that the results can be crippling or deadly.

The whole "purpose" of our senses for the last 6 million years has been to keep us alive... in a macroscopic world. The senses are honed to that function by evolution and natural selection down through the generations of us. No wonder we're confused when we start catching glimpses of the microscopic. When we are able to discern a cause and effect going on between the two, with the accuracy found in the function of our senses here, in the macroscopic, perhaps things will become clearer. For now, though, I'll remind you that nothing is only a part of everything!

 

[WaveJumper]

Have the experiments of Benjamin Libet on how unconscious electrical impulses predate conscious volitional acts been repeated or refuted? If not, it might, from a certain perspective, be interpreted as support for the primacy of mind over brain.

 

[SDetection]

Have the experiments of Benjamin Libet on how unconscious electrical impulses predate conscious volitional acts been repeated or refuted? If not, it might, from a certain perspective, be interpreted as support for the primacy of mind over brain.

Here is a definition of consciousness that doesn't make us special: An entity that is involuntary/unconsciously recalling an aspect, of its prior state, which it involuntary/unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

This means that, not because one is unconscious, one can't memorize anything, but one is unconscious because one hasn't just memorized anything to recall. What do you do if you want to wake someone up?
There is, of course, degree of consciousness, which is characterized by the levels of the dimensional knowledge that the observer can abstract from the stimuli, like when someone abstracts speech from sounds, or emotions from faces...

 

[WaveJumper]

Here is a definition of consciousness that doesn't make us special: An entity that is involuntary/unconsciously recalling an aspect, of its prior state, which it involuntary/unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

This doesn't say what consciousness is or if it's 'special'(whatever that means). It's simply a characteristic/feature of consciousness.

This means that, not because one is unconscious, one can't memorize anything, but one is unconscious because one hasn't just memorized anything to recall. What do you do if you want to wake someone up?
There is, of course, degree of consciousness, which is characterized by the levels of the dimensional knowledge that the observer can abstract from the stimuli, like when someone abstracts speech from sound, or emotions from faces...

What is the 'observer' that you seem to take for granted? This is a core issue and i am attempting to validate the assumptions being made, before proceeding to account for macro-scale phenomena. One of the basic assumptions is that matter is real and fundamental. I disagree with the latter and i am doubtful about the former. A thourough look at the nature of matter, space and time doesn't hold up to our pre-conceived notions. In this connection, i said earlier:

I don't see a reason to believe that either matter, or space might have a fundamental status. Both those concepts are securely tied to the dynamical background of GR. There doesn't appear to be a way to uphold the naive assumptions of our perception. What we term reality is either a limited, special case of what exists out there, or likely it's only just perception(with all the philosophical implications arising from this).

 

[magpies]

Ok so my definition of consciousness...

Consciousness: Being aware. <-- How good is this?

If I had my choice I would say consciousness is consciousness and leave it at that but that's not allowed it seems.