Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsla.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west From: west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) Newsgroups: net.books Subject: Re: Objective Reality Message-ID: <874@sdcsla.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 07:12:16 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcsla.874 Posted: Sun Jun 2 07:12:16 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 09:58:27 EDT References: <-178800@decwrl.UUCP> <4500005@hpfclp.UUCP> <612@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> Reply-To: west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) Organization: UC San Diego: Institute for Cognitive Science Lines: 69 Keywords: objective reality, roses Summary: Whose objective reality were you speaking of? In article <612@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> inc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) writes: > >HEAR, HEAR! I am one of those unfortunately few who believe in an objective >reality. I particularly take exception to the notion that merely to observe >something results in changing it. The very simplest example can easily prove >this is a "truth": see that peri^od? How does it change when I turn my eyes >in it's direction, and then look away? I don't think it changed in anyway >whatsoever. It is still a area piece of phosphorescent material that was >excited by electons until it glowed. Only as you read this, it is doing it >on YOUR screen, not mine. It's still the same piece of data, though. Whether >it persists or not is another thing. Ah me. Well, here goes. The idea that "observing things changes them" is actually rather well established in quantum mechanics. It is, in fact, one of the basic principles of physics -- at the quantum level. (A lot of "popular science" books have suggested that this applies at our level, too. This is generally nonsense, as your periodic example indicates.) It is also a tenet of Taoism that the observer changes what she observes. This can be taken on many levels, if you give it a sympathetic reading. E.g., in social situations (i.e., where what is being observed is "aware" of the observation), any social psychologist will tell you this is true. People react to being observed. At another level, one can take this in a very different and difficult-to-explain way. I'll give it a shot: When you observe something, say a rose, you are doing many things. The rose in a sense enters your head -- becomes a "memory". At first it will be a rather bleak and simple one. As you observe longer, you will see more detail and more regularity. You will begin to think of related things, perhaps of how such a beautiful thing could be generated from a tiny bit of DNA, perhaps of how roses arose in the process of evolution, perhaps of how nicely the juxtaposition of petals and thorns reflects life.... As you go through this process, your conception of that rose changes. You link it up with other concepts. Roses now mean something a little different to you than they did before. So what is a rose? You and I have probably never seen the same rose, yet we can no doubt agree that it wouldn't be too hard to come to a mutually acceptable definition. But what is reality then? That which we can all agree upon? This doesn't seem to be an acceptable definition of objective reality. So we can agree that there is an objective reality out there, but what is it we experience? If we can only perceive it through our senses, and interpret it based upon our past experiences, then how objective can our discussion be? ----- I'm not sure how I'd answer that last one myself. The point of this was just to illustrate how sticky "objective reality" (or Truth, or Beauty, or The American Way) becomes, once you start talking to another person. My apologies for sending this to net.books, but that's where this started from. Then again, I presume the Subject line was enough to scare most people away... -- Larry West Institute for Cognitive Science (USA+619-)452-6220 UC San Diego (mailcode C-015) [x6220] ARPA: La Jolla, CA 92093 U.S.A. UUCP: {ucbvax,sdcrdcf,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west OR ulysses!sdcsla!west