What is unseen?

Lynxxus · Jan 31, 2012

Let me begin by saying that I am NOT a philosopher and really, have no say in the whole matter but I have always loved philosophy and all the thought it produces.

A few of my peers and I had a debate/discussion over a philosophical question that arose in American Government today.
Imagine a book. That book has words in it. You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there? This same applies to other things. The famed "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound". Well, let's look at it briefly. Sound is only sound when it is received. If sound has nothing to be received by, then is it even there? The same applies to something that Einstein once said to his professor.
"Can you see your brain right now?"
The professor answered "no"
"Then how do you know it's there?"

What if you were looking straight forward...what if you were to question what was behind you. What if there was nothing behind you? What if images only appeared when something wasLOOKED at it.

Have we proof that our eyes exist if we can't see them? Have we proof that words disappear when you close a book?

My friend answered that it is scientifically impossible.
Ah...good answer my friend, but can science prove that words can disappear? Not really because science has never SEEN this happen. Again, this question arises.

Anyone want to discuss the matter?

Sidheil · Jan 31, 2012

Reminds me of Bishop Berkeley. Are you at all familiar with him? He is best known for being a philosophical idealist: that matter does not exist and objects are only perception.

juvenissun · Jan 31, 2012

Lynxxus said:
Let me begin by saying that I am NOT a philosopher and really, have no say in the whole matter but I have always loved philosophy and all the thought it produces.

A few of my peers and I had a debate/discussion over a philosophical question that arose in American Government today.
Imagine a book. That book has words in it. You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there? This same applies to other things. The famed "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound". Well, let's look at it briefly. Sound is only sound when it is received. If sound has nothing to be received by, then is it even there? The same applies to something that Einstein once said to his professor.
"Can you see your brain right now?"
The professor answered "no"
"Then how do you know it's there?"

What if you were looking straight forward...what if you were to question what was behind you. What if there was nothing behind you? What if images only appeared when something wasLOOKED at it.

Have we proof that our eyes exist if we can't see them? Have we proof that words disappear when you close a book?

My friend answered that it is scientifically impossible.
Ah...good answer my friend, but can science prove that words can disappear? Not really because science has never SEEN this happen. Again, this question arises.

Anyone want to discuss the matter?

Be practical. If you do not know whether something exists, either find it out, or forget it. Don't let the question bother you.

If you like to find it out, then there are ways. For example, put a recorder in the woods.

Lynxxus · Jan 31, 2012

That brings up another question though doesn't it. If you put a tape recorder in the woods, isn't that the same as listening? It may not be direct, but it is distant listening, thus the sound WOULD be received by something.

Sidheil · Jan 31, 2012

It sound like you're asking if, even if we don't perceive a sensation out can still be said to "exist". My best guess is that we can separate sensations from our perceptions of them. So in an empty forest the sound still exists, but no perception does. But there are hundreds of books that have bearing on this relationship between experience and ontology.

alton3 · Jan 31, 2012

Lynxxus said:
Imagine a book. That book has words in it. You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there? This same applies to other things.

The nature of empirical fact is such that you can recreate circumstances and produce the same results over and over. Observation is one half of knowledge; the other is probability.

variant · Jan 31, 2012

Thankfully modern science has a few more answers for you.

You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there?

Aside from the reasoning that the ink is still there when you close the book, it is still preceptable via instrumentation.

X-ray Floresence Spectroscopy.
Can Superman read books without opening them? - Educated Guesswork

This same applies to other things. The famed "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound".

It'll make a sound if someone precieves it but regardless it makes sound waves. The object dosen't cease whent he subject dosen't exist. Sound waves definitely exist without sound precievers and this can be proven.

Simmilarly solar rays contain UV rays that give us sunburn even though we don't see them. They are still rays of light, that you don't see.

Just about every event or object can be experienced in more than one manner that denotes that they exist at all, where as these examples generally reqire that you only use one sense.

"Can you see your brain right now?"
The professor answered "no"
"Then how do you know it's there?"

Einstein was jokeing you know... I hope you get it. Einstein correctly postulated certian aspects of physics useing only mathamatics and reasoning.

Few of us have ever seen a brain, we learn about them via studying their effects and what happens when they are dammaged.

What if you were looking straight forward...what if you were to question what was behind you. What if there was nothing behind you? What if images only appeared when something wasLOOKED at it.

We have signifigant evidence that demonstrates that immages appear when things are not looked at.

Have we proof that our eyes exist if we can't see them?

You see with them so....

Have we proof that words disappear when you close a book?

No.

My friend answered that it is scientifically impossible.
Ah...good answer my friend, but can science prove that words can disappear? Not really because science has never SEEN this happen. Again, this question arises.

No, the words (the ink) do not dissapear.

The object is always the object, while observers merely observe.

juvenissun · Jan 31, 2012

Lynxxus said:
That brings up another question though doesn't it. If you put a tape recorder in the woods, isn't that the same as listening? It may not be direct, but it is distant listening, thus the sound WOULD be received by something.

Why not? You can put a phone there and listen to it at the real time.

quatona · Feb 1, 2012

Lynxxus said:
Imagine a book. That book has words in it. You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there?

Lets say I can´t know for sure and there´s no proof. Where´s the problem?

This same applies to other things. The famed "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound". Well, let's look at it briefly. Sound is only sound when it is received. If sound has nothing to be received by, then is it even there?

Well, let´s expand this a bit: Since you haven´t seen the tree falling - has it even fallen, in the first place?

The same applies to something that Einstein once said to his professor.
"Can you see your brain right now?"
The professor answered "no"
"Then how do you know it's there?"

And even if you see it - how do you know it is there?
How is perceiving something visually more reliable than perceiving its functioning and effects?

What if you were looking straight forward...what if you were to question what was behind you. What if there was nothing behind you? What if images only appeared when something wasLOOKED at it.

Surely, images only appear when something is looked at. That´s the definition of "image". Where´s the problem?

Have we proof that our eyes exist if we can't see them?

Since all your questions are based on the questioning of the reliability of our perception - how would seeing our eyes be proof of their existence?

Have we proof that words disappear when you close a book?

Now, "proof" is a big word - and it all depends on what qualifies as "proof" by your standards.
Personally, I have made the experience that the words are there whenever I open the book, and that´s good enough for me. I really don´t care much what they are doing in the meantime. Maybe the go on vacation in the Carribean - if so, more power to them. As long as they are back when I need them.

My friend answered that it is scientifically impossible.

I think your friend may be in error about the criteria of science, and the way the word "proof" is used in science.

Ah...good answer my friend, but can science prove that words can disappear?

Well, if we apply your definition of "proof for being there" (namely that something is seen or heard by someone) we do have proof that the words disappear when we close the book.

Not really because science has never SEEN this happen. Again, this question arises.

Sure it has. Even I (not a scientist) have: any time I close a book I see the words in it disappear.

quatona · Feb 1, 2012

Lynxxus said:
That brings up another question though doesn't it. If you put a tape recorder in the woods, isn't that the same as listening? It may not be direct, but it is distant listening, thus the sound WOULD be received by something.

Even worse, there´s no way to reliably connect the falling of the tree to the noise: When I listen to the recording I see no tree falling.

And, if applying your standards consistently: The sound is only there when I listen to the recording. How do I know the tape won´t produce something entirely different (or nothing at all) when I will listen to it again?

The problem, however, is produced by your definition: If your defining criterium for "existing" is that something is being visually or audibly perceived, then it follows directly from that definition that things don´t exist when they aren´t heard or seen.

Now, let´s say a tree falls in the wood while you look in the other direction. I.e. you hear it falling but you don´t see it falling. Which of your perceptions do you trust and accept as "proof"?

quatona · Feb 1, 2012

Lynxxus said:
That brings up another question though doesn't it. If you put a tape recorder in the woods, isn't that the same as listening? It may not be direct, but it is distant listening, thus the sound WOULD be received by something.

Ok. Let´s say there´s an object of which you have reason to assume it might emit sound, e.g. a small siren. You have someone else place it in far distance from you (so that it doesn´t make a sound to you) and let the person place a tape recorder next to it.
You walk slowly towards the siren, and the sound will slowly be increasing. Since you define "sound" as that which is perceived, the sound *is* increasing. Now, when you later listen to the recording the recorded sound isn´t increasing but always remaining at the same level.
You end up with two contradicting pieces of evidence.
Does this siren make an increasing sound or a sound of a constant level? What would you conclude, and why?

quatona · Feb 1, 2012

Just one other thing:
You started with this:

Lynxxus said:
Imagine a book. That book has words in it. You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there?

By asking "if the cover is closed how do I know the words are still there" you are implying that seeing them is sufficient evidence to know they are there.

Later you get to:

Have we proof that our eyes exist if we can't see them?

While looking at the words in a book you obviously can´t see your own eyes. You find that sufficient reason to doubt they are there. Ok.
Then again, your criterium for "proof that the words in the book are there" was that your eyes could see them.

How come your criterium for proof lies squarely on something the existence of which you are doubting, also?

Received · Feb 1, 2012

You have objectivity, you have subjectivity. The latter is conditional on the former, even implicitly proof of the former. Just because subjective elements aren't present doesn't mean the objectivity that makes these subjective elements possible doesn't exist. It's all the better a reason to think that this is precisely why there is something permanent and real going on when our heads are turned away. Now, this "objectivity" is by definition qualityless, which is quite screwy on first glance, but this is only because qualities are determined by our subjectivity: big and small, hot and cold, etc., all depend on us. Hence subjectivity is, in a sense, relativity.

Someone decipher me.

Paradoxum · Feb 1, 2012

Lynxxus said:
Imagine a book. That book has words in it. You can clearly see them when it is open but what happens when you close it. If the cover is closed, how do you know that the words are still there?

You can't know.

This same applies to other things. The famed "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound". Well, let's look at it briefly. Sound is only sound when it is received. If sound has nothing to be received by, then is it even there?

Well sound is the vibration of atoms and molecules, so they still exist even if someone isn't there to hear it.

What if you were looking straight forward...what if you were to question what was behind you. What if there was nothing behind you? What if images only appeared when something wasLOOKED at it.

If I remember correctly, in observation does change the world in quantum mechanics. For example you your leave a radioactive atom to decay it will do so at the correct rate, but if you observe it (in real time or after it has been recorded by an instrument) it will slow down the rate of decay. In fact if you observe it often enough you can practically stop time, in terms of the decay of the atom (not literally I assume). Very weird.

Have we proof that our eyes exist if we can't see them?

Mirrors.

Anyone want to discuss the matter?

Time like this I wonder if I should have been a physicist. Science is probably just as important, or even more so, than philosophy to answer this. I would like to say that one can assume that things exist when you don't look at them, but perhaps they don't. At least not in the form that we are used to them being in.

Resha Caner · Feb 1, 2012

This may just be a paraphrase of what Received already said, but I think the issue here is: our ability to perceive does not determine whether something exists.

So, if we want to have certainty of something's existence, how do we do that? We (i.e. humanity) can't.

Or, where do we go looking to find something we think exists?

Or, if we found something once, can we be certain we will find it in the same place again?

Again, there is no such certainity. People have been looking for that kind of certainty since time began, and even the devil realized what the answer is. If I want that kind of certainty, I have to become a god.

Received · Feb 1, 2012

Heidegger had some interesting thoughts on the matter. Something along the lines of objectivity (not his term) being incapable of description, because description implies subjectivity. That is, objectivity is purely ineffable. Much like God. Or chicks.

underpressure · Feb 1, 2012

Einstein and Bohr had many disputes regarding the interpretations of quantum physics, Einstein hated the fact that there didn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation for the baffling results, and perhaps most famously, Einstein asked "Are you trying to tell me that the moon isn't there when no one is looking*?". Bohr's response was "Can you prove that the moon is there when no one is looking?"

*Just so there is no mistake, Einstein meant observing by any means.

Resha Caner · Feb 1, 2012

Received said:
... Or chicks.

(I had trouble finding that stupid popcorn emoticon. Where do people usually get that from?)

Received · Feb 1, 2012

Resha Caner said:
(I had trouble finding that stupid popcorn emoticon. Where do people usually get that from?)

No idea. Now I want some popcorn.

Resha Caner · Feb 1, 2012

Received said:
No idea. Now I want some popcorn.

Found it. Apparently CF doesn't have it, so you have to link to an external emoticon. BTW, I actually am eating popcorn ... but I guess you can't see that.

Anyway, I'm still anxious to hear a reply to the crack about chicks.

What is unseen?

God's Child

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

God's Child

Senior Member

Member

Happy Cat

... and God saw that it was good.

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

True love waits in haunted attics

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Expert Fool

True love waits in haunted attics

Newbie

Expert Fool

True love waits in haunted attics

Expert Fool

Similar threads