It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And when you remove all perceptions from your analysis of an object, what remains?
originally posted by: Beyond Creation
The dream world is an obvious example of how we are able to have an experience without using any physical senses.
)
A falling tree, despite being out of ear-shot, still produces a sound wave - energy. Whether or not a sound is sensed (realised), does not affect the actuality of the falling tree and its sound wave.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
I think your title is innacurate. The world and the universe are real in any sense you try to take it. Its observable. We can interact with it in extremely predictable ways. We can take it apart to very small pieces and put it back together in better and more meaningful ways.
The thinking mind is nothing more than a word generator. It strings words together and makes stories about what is not happening. Just imagine how life would be if the speaking mind would stop speaking. Imagine seeing and hearing without the mind saying 'it should not be like this...it should be better, etc.'. The stories the words speak are about other times and other places because the mind cannot tell stories about what is actually happening.
Our brains may give us an advantage for solving puzzles, but it is not, and will likely never be adequate enough to understand every aspect of the universe.
originally posted by: Aphorism
With a little effort, this question becomes meaningless, for it basically questions what something looks like without something to see it, or how something smells without something to smell it. A description or analysis of reality requires observation. Something cannot be described in adjectives without being observed. Observation and perception requires an observer in a relationship with what is observed. The only way to “remove perception” from analysis is to destroy that relationship, and in the process, destroy the analysis.
Why we fall into one another's energy is interesting
originally posted by: TheJourney
originally posted by: Woodcarver
I think your title is innacurate. The world and the universe are real in any sense you try to take it. Its observable.
Again, I am not saying the world is not real. Though my title was somewhat dramatic, I was careful with the wording. The title is 'the world you perceive does not exist.' Everything in the world lacks the perceptual characteristics they seem to have to you. All perceptual characteristics only exist to minds. They do not exist in the objects themselves.
Posted by Serdgiam
Even if the innate experience of perspective gives the appearance of 'something,' its really more of a delayed, amalgamated signal of real-time events. I'm not sure its inaccuracy or limited nature renders it non-existent though.
All visual properties only appear to eyes and a mind. And so on with all perceptions. So, we can definitely say that all objects are not the perceptions we have of them.
A falling tree does not make a sound if noone hears it. Sound only occurs in the presence of ears and a mind.
*
originally posted by: Astyanax
Actually, sound is how we perceive pressure waves in a fluid medium. The waves are there whether someone hears them or not.
Here's a little Schrödinger's Cat-type gedankenexperiment for you to try. I set up a microphone inside a soundproof room, inside which I have placed a wound-up mechanical music-box which I have connected up to some contraption that will allow me to start it from outside the room. The signal from the microphone goes direct to a tape recorder.
The music-box plays, and winds down. After it has stopped playing, I enter the room, retrieve the tape, and put it in a filing-cabinet. There it lives for three months. One day I take the tape out and play it. I hear the sound of the music-box.
Was there no sound in the sealed room where the music-box played?
What was the sound I heard when I listened to the tape?
Where was the sound while the tape was in the filing-cabinet?
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
originally posted by: Astyanax
Actually, sound is how we perceive pressure waves in a fluid medium. The waves are there whether someone hears them or not.
True, the sound wave, as in the mechanistic property of sound, is there. But a noise is not.
Here's a little Schrödinger's Cat-type gedankenexperiment for you to try. I set up a microphone inside a soundproof room, inside which I have placed a wound-up mechanical music-box which I have connected up to some contraption that will allow me to start it from outside the room. The signal from the microphone goes direct to a tape recorder.
The music-box plays, and winds down. After it has stopped playing, I enter the room, retrieve the tape, and put it in a filing-cabinet. There it lives for three months. One day I take the tape out and play it. I hear the sound of the music-box.
Was there no sound in the sealed room where the music-box played?
What was the sound I heard when I listened to the tape?
Where was the sound while the tape was in the filing-cabinet?
How does your clever experiment fare without a microphone in the room?
The notion still stands- a sound is not made (experienced) when the sensory equipment is not present to receive and process mechanistic waves into an experience of sound.