On Friday, February 14, 2014 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 February 2014 17:42, Russell Standish > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +1300, LizR wrote: >> > On 14 February 2014 15:40, Russell Standish >> > <[email protected]<javascript:>> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > And it implies there was no reality before humans. >> > > >> > > If by "human" you mean observers in general, then yes - it does imply >> > > that. There is no reality without observers. >> > > >> > > What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably) no >> > observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it wouldn't >> exist if >> > we hadn't evolved to detect it (e.g. if humans hadn't evolved, or if we >> had >> > never invented radio telescopes) ? >> >> Yes - exactly. >> >> I do find that idea a bit mind boggling! >
It doesn't have to be an observer though, only that there is experience. As human animals, we experience ourselves as a participant and an observer because we are nested within a nervous system and then a body and then the world of that body. I don't see any scientific reason to rule out the idea of sensation without a sensor though, given pansensitivity, the idea of a sensor is part of the experience in which that idea is present. It's no more bizarre than assuming that observation can develop in a universe devoid of experience. All that we have to do is to sort of remove the "LET" statement from "LET X=" and begin directly with X as an experience rather than an experience OF X. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
