Philosophical Speculations

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:01 pm

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 2:37 pm

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:52 pm Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[6]

Thanks for making my point. The derivation of observe is 'to watch' or to 'look at', implying subjectivity. To suggest that a brick reacting to sunlight by heating up is somehow 'watching' or 'looking at' or 'sensing' the sunlight, is tantamount to the panpsychism which holds that discrete ontic particles have conscious agency. So, when it is applied to a measurement apparatus that should not be taken to imply some kind of subjective features, like watching and looking, how is it not a re-defining of the derivation of the term?

It's a technical term.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:13 pm

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:01 pm

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 2:37 pm
Thanks for making my point. The derivation of observe is 'to watch' or to 'look at', implying subjectivity. To suggest that a brick reacting to sunlight by heating up is somehow 'watching' or 'looking at' or 'sensing' the sunlight, is tantamount to the panpsychism which holds that discrete ontic particles have conscious agency. So, when it is applied to a measurement apparatus that should not be taken to imply some kind of subjective features, like watching and looking, how is it not a re-defining of the derivation of the term?

It's a technical term.

Nonetheless, it is a technical term that redefines the derivation of 'observe', i.e. to watch or look at. One can only conclude that in the materialist effort to remove consciousness from factoring into the process, and not be seen to be making claims tantamount to panpsychism, they had to invent the notion of a non-conscious watcher.

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:23 pm I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:31 pm

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:23 pm I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

There's a colloquial usage other than, e.g., I'm observing/watching/looking at this text? Pray tell?

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:33 pm

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:31 pm

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:23 pm I would argue that probably the physicist's use of the term corresponds more closely to its colloquial usage than your usage.

There's a colloquial usage other than, e.g., I'm observing/watching/looking at this text? Pray tell?

But wait. The mind-at-large isn't metacognitive. It can't observe itself.

carlodicelico wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:58 pm This, "Classic idealism, formulated by Bishop Berkeley in a number of works in the 18th Century,", must mean specifically Western or German Idealism? Idealism more generally goes back many thousands of years in both the Western and Eastern schools, no?