Why Nothing Online Is Real.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it - does it make a sound?

consider:
a stranger hears the tree fall & posts this information online. It goes viral and the world is a worse place because of this information. The news is unsettling.

You read about the tree falling and are sad, however:

Sound is only sound if a person hears it. That is the definition of 'sound'.
Air molecules acted as carriers releasing the mechanical energy of the falling tree, which was documented by a bystander. This is factual.
You now have 'knowledge' of the falling tree, but for you....

The truth is - the tree never made a sound.

I wish we could reopen the entire case of listening. Using our ears.
Hearing is passive, listening is active.
One does not require energy, the other does.
All that happens online is simply a documentation of sensory events you did not experience. It is passive, and no energy is transferred. Listen to life you reside in, the people around you, the 'real world' you are currently existing in presently and discover it's truth:

Nothing online is real.

This is not a toast for apathy, simply a recalibration.
Log off facebook, close your computer and live your life. Listen to the world YOU live in.

Cheers!

Nothing exists but me.

*Puts hands over ears*

LA LA LA LA LA LA.

reply to post by DresdenCodex


Lets change the analogy....

A volcano erupts but you are not there to hear or see it...

someone reports it online and the ashcloud is heading your way...

you take heed and get the hell out of dodge before the ash-cloud coats your lungs in a nice layer of silicon razorblades that suffocates you in a painfull death...

Real or not, your "awareness" of things outside of your "perception" range is legitimate and important regardless of whether or not its a reality in your immediate perception range.

Pics or it didn't happen!

Obligatory.........

reply to post by DresdenCodex


This is true. Something important that many people have forgotten how to do, what with the immersion of screens and all.

I can multi-task, though! I am listening to people gossiping in the next office over, listening to my hanging plants rustle from the heater, and listening to a car alarm that was activated by gusting winds in the blizzard that just started up outside.

I whole-heartedly disagree. Sensory input, even when in digital form, may still incite and emotional response. How many have cried themselves to sleep listening to a track of love while remembering their loss? Information is not localised to observation and this is the great down-fall of human understanding.

An explanation and demonstration of the independence of these moments of time-space, at least to a degree.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DresdenCodex


I've always thought how speciesist the "tree falling in a forest" question is. Of course there are going to be birds and insects and squirrels and hundreds of other guys that are going to hear it.

reply to post by Aleister


But, if they do not understand that it was falling tree they heard... did they hear the tree falling, or just a loud sound that made them run?

If a tree falling in the forest is witnessed, thereby heard, by any living creature that can hear - it makes a sound. If not, then it does not make a sound.

Originally posted by satron
Nothing exists but me.

*Puts hands over ears*

LA LA LA LA LA LA.

can you prove otherwise?

you come into this world alone. you die alone.

what do you know of another persons existence? can you exist through them?

Originally posted by usernamehere
I whole-heartedly disagree. Sensory input, even when in digital form, may still incite and emotional response. How many have cried themselves to sleep listening to a track of love while remembering their loss? Information is not localised to observation and this is the great down-fall of human understanding.

An explanation and demonstration of the independence of these moments of time-space, at least to a degree.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Exactly. No matter how you experience a sensation, it will not be "first hand". You experience everything by proxy as long as you are viewing from your brain. What's more, observation is validation of reality and often facilitates the creation itself as demonstrated by a few contemporary experiments.

Reality is as reality does. It is however it is presented and cannot be philosophized away and confirming one does not make another less valid.

I intend to read that thread you linked at some point today; looks like it's up my alley.

Originally posted by usernamehere
I whole-heartedly disagree. Information is not localised to observation and this is the great down-fall of human understanding.

observation is the act of perceiving. I'm discussing listening, which does not include your eyes. Give a deaf, mute, blind person with no sense of smell - the tail of an elephant and consider what they perceive. Such is being online.

the answer here depends on the reference u have in mind to justify ur existence, when true existence reference to u is objective reality life of matters energies then ur relative existence is urself objective reality exclusively

but if the reference is existence truth then relative existence is conscious freedom rights realities and realizations that the net life confirm

reply to post by DresdenCodex


You believe sensory experience via the eyes to be "perception" but not listening or feeling? That makes no sense (no pun) How can one consider a single sense organ valid but another not, especially when considering they each are gradations of the same system. Each sense requires a source of input (Cause), the processing of that input, and finally the delivery of a result we call experience (Effect).

I am not condemning your theory but I think it requires more thought and explanation.

The blind men and the elephant.... hmmm....

www.wordfocus.com...

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind



The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the ElephantIs very like a wall!”



The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”



The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!



The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
” ‘Tis clear enough the ElephantIs very like a tree!”



The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”



The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”



And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!



Moral
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

I understand the point you're trying to make, and it is valid, at least until one removes their ego, the perception that man is the centre of the universe so to speak, much as we did with the planets in the earlier part of our history. The universe and what may be experienced of the universe is not dependent on observation from a single perspective or even multiple perspectives, it is a whole, what happens in one part (If we can return to a divisional point of view for a moment) is reflected in every other part. Take a stone and throw it into a pool of water and tell me which parts are affected and which are not.... Perhaps a better question is: Can action occur without observation?

The evidence for my statements are simply the vast majority of moments of time-space which are captured regularly using finite man-made devices. Though finite by design, we still are able to the represent the universe symbolically to a level of sophistication whereby the human-system is fooled.

Plainly stated: observation of moments of time-space whether directly or indirectly (Symbolically) are capable of affecting the human-system. Whether those moments of time-space can exist without observation... well that is not really the topic of discussion.

While I applaude the point you make in the OP, you may want to consider this.

Everything is merely information. Whether it be a tree falling in the woods while we were there and therefore percieved the waves through the air with our own ears and 'saw' it via the lightwaves picked up by our eyes, or if you simply saw it as a youtube video, or even if all you did was read about it through the medium of printed word.

The only difference really is that the information has had to pass through a few extra mediums before it hits our brains. However each time it passes through a different medium we lose more and more information surrounding the event (i.e the smells within the forest at the time, the temperature or wind direction at the time etc).

But what is truly the most important thing is the thoughts that the information provokes and the actions which stem from those thoughts.