CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The world is a representation
The world is a representation. Despite all the objectivity that science is capable of, we ultimately know the world only how it is for us, that is, in its dependence on human consciousness.
Everything that you can possibly experience and conceive is actually part of your representation of reality, not reality itself. The world is your world and nothing that is not part of your representation can enter into it.
The latter does not follow from the former. We experience our own sense representation of the world around us, true. But it does not follow that the actual world around us is therefore a representation itself.
We subjectively experience that which is objective. Our subjective experience does not, in itself, alter or eliminate the existence of the objective world.
I agree, you're correct . I stated........Everything that you can possibly experience and conceive is actually part of your representation of reality, not reality itself........
I did state ...... not reality itself , I took the topic to mean that the world is a representation as we perceive it , my mistake
Amarel, you are completely misunderstanding the topic for which is up for debate...
The debate topic tacitly presupposes that there is a physical objective reality outside of human consciousness. It is asking whether or not we can get a one-to-one style mapping representation of this physical reality in which we are able to so accurately perceive the Physical objective reality for what it is that the distinction between representation and reality breaks down to being non-existent. The reason why this didn't occur to you is because you have essentially no knowledge of modern science or scientific minded thinking so you take the world around you at face-value, completely unaware that the 500 year history of science (and even notable contributions in pre-scientific eras) has revealed that objective physical reality is VERY different than what we would think if we take the world at face value. Have you stopped to ask yourself, "what would it even mean for reality to be a representation? Reality as a representation of Reality? That doesn't seem right? Is it possible that I am misunderstanding the question posed by the creator of the Debate?"
Yes, you are absolutely correct. We know from neuroscience that our view of the world is a "simulation" or "constrained hallucination" produced by our brains based upon the stimulus it is receiving from the outside world but itself does not have direct contact to the outside world. That is, the brain is enclosed inside of our skulls in total darkness and is producing an image of the world based on the rest on the signals it is receiving from external input. In fact, this becomes obvious once you consider the case of people with various neurological disorders that are getting very different representations of the world based on the stimuli their nervous systems are capable of processing. Also, consider what it would be like to be a member of a different species, a bat say or a wolf. They are going to have very different representations of the world based upon what their nervous systems have evolved to be capable of processing.
Their are many neuroscience and philosophy books/lectures/articles that explore this concept much further. Just to list a few as reference:
Also, for these books I have listed, most of them you can put the title into YouTube or the Authors name and lectures/videos will come up that summarize the contents of the books that bolster my argument.
They are going to have very different representations of the world
This comment is just one way in which your post illustrates the opposite of what you are saying. Our view of the world is a representation, but the world itself is not. Other species see the world differently, they don't live in a different world.
We know from neuroscience that our view of the world is a "simulation" or "constrained hallucination"
If our view of the world is a constrained hallucination, then our neuroscience is a product of said hallucination and cannot be trusted.
"constrained hallucination" produced by our brains based upon the stimulus it is receiving from the outside world but itself does not have direct contact to the outside world
To say that our perspective is an hallucination because we do not have "direct contact" with the outside world requires an explanation of what "direct contact" would entail. All things are necessarily sensed through sense organs, this is our contact. To require otherwise is to require contact with the world through no particular means.
this becomes obvious once you consider the case of people with various neurological disorders
The fact that we can claim these people have disorders makes the opposite case more obvious. The world is not a representation, our view of it is, and if our view is not in accordance with the reality, we have a "disorder".
Please watch a few of these short videos that I will list at the end of this comment. Your comments suggests such a profound ignorance of Neuroscience to such an extent that you don't seem to understand the ESTABLISHED FACT that you are NOT "seeing the world through your eyes" but rather your brain is taking in sensory information, processing it, and creating a projection (aka. REPRESENTATION) of a way in which it is evolutionarily advantageous for our primate species to have adapted in this way (eg. to see the world on our scale, to perceive "color" which is NOT an intrinsic property of the Universe (you may want to learn some basic Physics as well while your at it), to perceive Physics in a Classical sense and not a Quantum Mechanical way because we do not live on that scale, our perception of time, ect. ect.). The objective physical reality of the Universe is very different than what we as Humans (ei. Apes, Mammals, Animals). If you were ANYTHING BUT HUMAN you would perceive the world/universe in a very different way. Moreover, even being human you perceive the world very differently than someone who is colorblind, deaf, phantom limb syndrome, ect. (btw, this is literally what Neurologist study, please read an Oliver Sacks or V.S. Ramachandran book or at least watch a video, it will open your eyes). The image of the world that you are presenting is consistent with what is known as the Cartesian Theatre and I will provide a link to this below.
If you don't watch at least one of these videos than please do not bother to respond as you will have learned no new requisite information necessary for which to intelligently comment by. Also, by that same token, if you think you have a video or chapter of a book, article, or whatever that is just a knock down argument of everything I have just stated I would be VERY interested to see it. In such a case, please provide said link and I would like to read/watch it for myself.
Before accusing your opponents of ignorance, you should be sure you understand what they are saying, and perhaps what you are saying. The debate is over whether the world is a representation. Well, the world is not a representation, your perception is. Your whole post claiming the position that the world is a representation is contradicted within your own post at every turn when you explain perception as distinct from reality. If your perception is a representation, you are not in a position to say anything about reality itself.
I’ll admit to have only the most cursory of knowledge of neuroscience, but more is not required for my point. If you have a method by which you prove that you are completely delusional, then your method is necessarily a product of the very same delusion it presumes to prove. While that is not neuroscience, it is logic.
It is not reality that is a representation, it is your perception. Furthermore, your perception is not inaccurate, though it is incomplete. If you proved your perception to be inaccurate, then your proof would be as questionable as the perception by which you arrived at your conclusion. I hope you have read all of this before reading that I have not watched any of your videos, and I hope you see that they aren't necessary. You will just have to make your own points. Link to written sources for substantiation, my time is worth more than what would be lost on your videos.
Pardon me for saying so, and I hope you will not answer me harshly here.....
This is far from the first time I have read some of your stuff and been impressed...sometimes I think you are not far from knowing the truth is Jesus Christ from who all we know as logical originates.
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."
Hi NowASaint. Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your perspective and understand why you, as a person of faith that believes in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, would attempt to "reach out" to me in this manner. I would be quite interested to know precisely what you believe on specific matters since "Religion" or "Christianity" are very broad terms that are compatible with many different ways of viewing the world.
Now, to state my bias (and if you have read some of my other posts than you know), I do not share your beliefs about the Divinity of Jesus or in Divine beings generally. To give you a bit of my first hand knowledge of "Holy Books" (to date) I have read about half of the Old Testament and none of the New Testament, and read the entire Koran.
Now, to be fair to you and your challenge, in light of this being a debate forum, if you believe that you have compelling sources that provide strong enough reasoning sufficient to warrant persuading me off of my current position and toward yours, I am willing to read/watch any list of up to 5 sources that you give me links or otherwise directly refer me to. My conditions on the sources are that as long as the videos are no more than 2hrs apiece or they count for an additional link every 2hrs (eg. a 6hr video counts for 3 sources) and reading sources are no more than a single chapter in a book, not an entire book. If you provide this, I will watch/read it all and get back to you with my thoughts about it and whether it was able to persuade me to some degree or not and why (although it may take a few days or so to get back to you depending on the length of the material, if you choose to send any).
Christ commands me to be a light for Him, and light is always reaching out into the darkness. The light of the gospel (the good news of what Jesus Christ did for mankind) illuminates the soul of all who will believe and receive Him as their Savior.
Jesus Christ claimed to be the one and only personification of truth. He claimed to be the one and only way, the one and only life, the one and only truth. There is either one true way of viewing the world or there is no way to know any true way, and no way to validate what you believe to be true.
If the Koran is true, then the Bible is a book of lies. If the Bible is true, then the Koran is a book of lies. How do you determine what is true?
I do not know if I can persuade you to believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate who died for our sins, and rose bodily from the grave with power and will to forgive all who admit they are sinners who deserve to die while they believe Jesus died for them and paid their price so they can be forgiven by Him and live with Him forever in His resurrection. Do you want to believe it? If you don't want to believe it, you never will believe it and nothing I say or do will persuade you to receive Jesus Christ as God your Savior.
To start, I'll tell you a story....not an unusual story as there are many heroes walking among us who have taken far greater risk trying to help others in need......just a story I know well because it is true and I was the person acting heroically (again, really not much of a hero because I honestly thought the danger was not extreme). People who do heroic things usually say they were only doing what needed to be done at the moment and they feel they really had no choice but to do it. What is heroic about doing what you feel you are forced to do?
I was driving on a four lane stretch of one-way highway before it changed to a freeway. I was in the left center lane, passing a mini-van which was in the right center lane. When my front bumper passed his rear bumper, he suddenly turned left in front of me trying to go into the last side street before there were no exits on the freeway. I turned left sharply, trying to avoid collision, but I could not avoid bumping him midway through the turn and the mini-van rolled over the curb and slid on the grass upside down before coming to a halt....with four people inside hanging in their seat belts upside down. I stopped on the road at about the same time they stopped sliding upside down on the grass and I jumped out of my truck (pickup) as quickly as I could and ran over to them. It crossed my mind that the thing could burst into flames and I would be standing there watching four people burn to death....and that was the last thing I thought about before I dove in through the shattered side window. One by one, I released their seat belts and helped them fall to the ground and sent them out the window. Then I came out behind them.
They were very shaken up, disoriented, they did not know how the accident happened and they forgot to thank me...though I know they were thankful as I was helping them get out.
I use this story to try to get people to think about what Jesus did for us.......how He saw the trouble of dying which we are in, and He cared so much for us that He gave His own life trying to save us. If we believe, admit our need and receive Him as our Savior, He will pull us up out of our dying by His power.....the power of God which fears not death and cannot be stopped by death. He is the life of all who receive Him by faith, and He saves them once and forever.
If you don't want the Savior to save you, then all you can do is to try to save yourself by doing whatever you believe may or will earn you the right to live forever, or you can try to destroy yourself and hope your destroying does not continue forever (the atheist faith). If you will believe from your heart that He (Jesus) is risen from the dead and and trust Him as the Savior to save you, then admit that you have sinned against Him and deserve to die and need His forgiveness, ask God in the name of Jesus to save you, receive Him (Jesus) by faith as your Savior and He will save you now.
If you want to believe what is to most people too good to be true, and you are open to the possibility of being persuaded, I will send you some links of videos I have watched and enjoyed.
@NowASaint, "If the Koran is true, then the Bible is a book of lies. If the Bible is true, then the Koran is a book of lies."
Just to clear up one point here, the Koran actually is an extension of the Bible and accepts everything inside of the Bible with the one very notable exception that Jesus is not believed to be Divine. In this sense, you can view the Koran as a "3rd Testament" with the Old Testament and New Testament comprising the first two. Jesus is a very important figure in Islam, he is a prophet, he is just not viewed to be Divine. So if the Koran were true, then that necessitates the Bible to be true (with the significant exception of the Divinity of Jesus). If the New Testament is the final establishment in the Holy literature, then the Koran would be wrong (similar to how Judaism views Christianity)
I understand that from your perspective you are reaching out to me in an attempt to plant a seed of doubt in my mind that could potentially shift me off of my current framework and toward a Christian view (and it appears like you believe my "soul" may be in jeopardy if this does not occur). So, at minimum, given your beliefs, I understand and appreciate your attempt to "reach out" towards me. That is why I say if you give me some kind of source that may have had a big impact on you and your belief formation/solidification such as a debate, Christian apologist, lecture, book chapter, ect. I will explore it. With regards to changing my beliefs, I do disagree with in a sense that you stated, " Do you want to believe it? If you don't want to believe it, you never will believe it and nothing I say or do will persuade you...", and, in my view, beliefs have a lot less to do with "if you want to believe something" and a lot more to do with a person's internal evaluation of the reasons and evidence they are confronted with. Beliefs are our mental representations of the world that we take to be true, and this separates it from hopes. Therefore, people are essentially helpless to holding onto beliefs that they either do or do not want to believe in if they are confronted by reasons that just start making too much sense (in their internal evaluation). Now, I am familiar with many arguments both for and against religious belief/Christianity/Divine order to the Cosmos/ect. and as I stated upfront, you and I are coming from very different positions at the moment.
Now, what I can promise you is that if you provide sources I will read/watch them and provide my thoughts on it with you when I'm done, and in return if you are willing, I will provide one source of my own for every source you provide (ei. if you provide two sources than I will provide two sources) that better illustrates how I arrived at my conclusions and current position and were transformative for me. If you decide you do not want to partake in this mutual challenge that is fine, but I hope you do as we can both potentially profit from this experience.
@NowASaint, "You sure talk like a Muslim....I have seen them before say that they are atheists, using a lie to try to spread Islam"
I can't imagine how you could be serious. Provide one example that I "sure talk like a Muslim" posing to be an atheist? Since when has this hypothesis of yours developed?
I have tried to be understanding with you in regards to the Religious/Non-Religious gulf between the way you and I view the world and said that out of respect for you (in response to your first post to me) that I am willing to hear you out on the matter if you give me something to grab onto and consider/critique. However, I can see now that we are going to be completely unable to have a productive conversation and that courtesy I have attempted to give you is not going to be reciprocated. You have now made the outlandish accusation that I am an Atheist imposter, here to carry out a covert mission to spread Islam through an internet debate site, inside of which I have never once mentioned anything that falls in line with the Islamic worldview (and have said many things Muslims and religious people generally would not at all agree with). Moreover, as you became frustrated with your own confusion on the matter you stated something along the lines of, "Okay, whatever. Your going to burn in Hell anyway."
Something tells me that it's a waste of time to try to reason with you regarding your need of salvation and God's provision for it. The first statement of belief I saw from you was when you said the Krayon is an extension of the Bible. That is what Muslims say. Most atheists understand that the Bible contradicts Islam and excludes Mohammed from being a prophet because Muhammed repeatedly broke God's law by stealing, child molesting, murdering....... yet you seem not to care. You have not retracted your statement claiming the Crayon is an extension of the Bible, so I have to conclude that you are a Muslim. You would not be the first Muslim I have seen pretending to be an atheist while promoting Islam.
Seems to me like you are the one who is frustrated because I see you are not open while you try to spread whatever it is you are trying to spread.
If you are not saved from your sins, you will burn in Hell forever. You can get saved by God the Savior in reality. You are being religious, trying to convince yourself that you deserve to live outside of Hell. It is not me who is frustrated, it is you who is frustrated because you can't lure me in to playing your game.
I am an atheist. That still does not mean that Islam does not view the Koran as an extension of the Bible (they do believe that) just like you believe that the New Testament is an extension of the Old Testament (even though Jewish people clearly do not believe that and would disagree with that as strongly as you disagree with the Koran being an extension of the New Testament). So I certainly am not retracting that statement about the relationship between the Bible and the Koran or Judiasm-Christianity-Islam either. That is the fundamental basis of the belief system. There are objective truths that you have to contend with.
I do not believe in Hell or Heaven or Purgatory, or another such "non-physical" place. I do concede your point that this has become quite frustrating for me. Originally, when you posted to me, in my view, I saw you as a good natured individual attempting to extend a hand to a person that you viewed as "in need" due to the nature of your beliefs and out of that dynamic and respect for you and your position I stated that if you think you have sources that could persuade my off of atheism and toward you Christian theistic notion of the world, than I will explore it and will engage with you on the topic. However, now you have told me multiple times something along the lines, "Look, my patience with you is running thin, and to be honest, I don't really care much if you burn in Hell forever and ever till the end of time like a frying sausage or not." which is clearly not the more gentle-natured, principled framework for which I originally thought we could be having this discussion.
You are stating the Muslim commentary regarding the Bible which is a lie. The Koran completely changes the Bible, the Bible is all about Jesus Christ from cover to cover, He is God. If you can't recognize that the Bible rejects the Koran and Mohammed, I have to conclude that you are a Muslim.
You are not stating "objective truth", you are stating Muslim propaganda ignoring objective truth.
It is you, not me, who does not care if you end up frying in Hell forever like an eternal sausage. I am telling you that as you stand now, you have one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell....I am telling you because I care about you and know you need to be and can be saved by God the Savior, Jesus Christ. It does not matter if you believe Hell is a real place or not...unbelief does not change Hell. You are fighting against the idea by accusing me of being unkind......you are trying to shoot the messenger. You need to listen, you need to be saved.
I am being patient with you, I simply am not playing your game which I know will be never ending rabbit trails and you will jump to another path any time the truth gets too close to you.........and I still think you are a Muslim because you keep insisting that the Crayon is an extension of the Bible. It is very easy to show that the Bible has no allowance for the Koran to be considered as from God....the Bible stands 100 percent against the Krayon. Just because Mohammed killed a lot of people and molested some children and had nine wives after he murdered hundreds or thousands does not mean he is the voice or the power of God. The Koran is a book of lies, doctrines of demons from Hell.
Christians, real Christians who believe the Bible do not look at the New Testament as an extension of the old. The Old Testament is looked at by real Christians as Jesus Christ concealed, the New Testament is Jesus Christ revealed. It is one book, Jesus is the Messiah, and one day all of Israel will know Him as their Messiah.
Islam is nothing but hatred of Jews.......an invention of Muhammed to consolidate the power he gained by robbing, killing, and raping. Israel is still God's chosen people through whom He reveals Himself to the world, and God will always be on the side of Israel and against those who want to destroy Israel like the Muslims do.
I think you are a Muslim pretending to be an atheist so you can publish Islam's fundamental propaganda point...lying to say Muhammed was chosen by God to replace Jesus Christ and kill or enslave all Jews. Lying to spread Islam is considered virtuous by Muslims, and I think you are one of them.
The New Testament is not an extension of the Old Testament, it is Jesus Christ revealed. The Old Testament is Jesus Christ concealed. It is one book, not one book extended by another book, and it is all about Jesus Christ from cover to cover. What Muslims believe about the Bible is easily shown by the Bible to be wrong..the same as your statement of Christians believing the New Testament is an extension of the Old is wrong.
Because you insist on upholding the Muslim idea of the Bible and will not look at how the Bible shows Islam is wrong, then I have to conclude that you are a Muslim. There is no relationship between the Bible and the Koran. Only a Muslim will adamantly insist that they are related. There is no objective truth in Islam, nor in atheism, so it's easy for a Muslim to pretend to be an atheist.
Christ commands me to be a light for Him, and light is always reaching out into the darkness. The light of the gospel (the good news of what Jesus Christ did for mankind) illuminates the soul of all who will believe and receive Him as their Savior.
@NowASaint, thank you for posting a video. However, I have tried to play the video and an error has occurred so I am unable to watch it. Is it possible to copy and paste the link instead of imbedding it?
@NowASaint, I am half-way into the video you linked me too. I just wanted to make sure there isn't a miscommunication going on due to the nature of the video you sent, I am not Muslim, I am not a believer in any religion, gods, or supernatural phenomena (e.i. atheist). I mentioned what "Holy Texts" I have read just as background information and also so that you know up front that I have not read the New Testament as I understand that is a basis for Christianity. In light of this, perhaps there is another source you would like me to view?
You said the Crayon is an extension of the Bible, it is not. If you don't believe what you are saying, why say it? I am aware that lying for the cause of Allah is supposed to be a good thing in Islam.
I am a bit confused now as to the nature of our conversation at this point. From my perspective, you noticed that I am a non-believer and am attempting to reach out to someone who does not have faith in a form of Christianity that you subscribe to and that is the framework in which I am saying, "I am open to viewing evidence contrary to my position towards yours if you want to provide evidence that has been valuable to you in your belief formation/solidification process (e.g. Perhaps you were not that strong of a believer until you found/stumbled upon "X" and this changed everything, or maybe you were always a very strong believer because of "X").
Now, in regards to the Koran, the Koran IS viewed to be "The Final Message" to humankind from the "One True God" in Islam, and is an extension of the Bible (e.i. The author of the Koran was well aware of the Bible and the religion(s) it has spawned, discusses it frequently in the Koran and repeatedly makes clear in no uncertain terms that this is "The Final Installment" or "Final Message" from God. I'm not just taking this from hearsay, I have read the Koran myself. Now, I understand that is not what you as a Christian believe, however that is the premise of the Koran. The reason why I read the Koran before completing the Bible is because the Koran is about 450-600 pages depending on the edition and translation while the Bible is nearly 2000 pages of very densely print writing and would be quite a time investment compared to the Koran that can be read in a short amount of time. And just to repeat, I am not Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Pagan/Spiritist/New-Age or any religion or quasi-religion. I have no religion.
?? I do not believe in Allah as I am not Muslim. I fear that our conversation has really begun to go off the rails and that there is little hope of bringing it back on track to the productive conversation that it originally could have, and should have been.
To be clear one last time, I have absolutely no connection with Islam or a belief in Allah
Yeah, you better run, Moozie, before I challenge your assertion that the Krayon is an extension of the Bible and show you from the Bible why the Koran cannot possibly be part of or an extension of the Bible.
When you are confronted with the truth, you will have to change your belief about the Kran being an extension of the Bible......and if the other Moozies find out that you know they are liars, they will try to kill you and maybe your family too.
Here's a video from a former atheist......very well done, excellent theater and cinematography keeping the narrative flowing.
You are being too broad to get me going in a conversation. The only thing specific I have seen from you is that you think, as Muslims do, that the Crayon is an extension of the Bible. If you want to discuss something, be specific regarding what you want to discuss and I will challenge points where you are not in line with the truth.
Why are you responding to my posts? I am not talking to you, and if you respond to this statement I am still not talking to you, not reading your posts because you are butting in.
Hi NowASaint, I watched the video you sent me as well as another video following that one with a former French Atheist turned Christian (which I found to be the more interesting of the two videos personally). I think that we are really going to have to just agree to disagree on the topic of religion.
"The world is a representation. Despite all the objectivity that science is capable of, we ultimately know the world only how it is for us, that is, in its dependence on human consciousness."
That is the topic and description for the Debate as given by the creator of the thread Gypsee. It is tacitly presuming that there is an objective physical reality that human beings are a part of. Now, it is posing the debate question, "Are human beings seeing reality as it actually is OR are we seeing a representation of that reality that we are unable to fully probe due to the limitations of the consciousness produced by our human brains/nervous systems". So, Amarel when you said, "It is not reality that is a representation, it is your perception." I agree with you 100% on that point. Have you stopped to ask yourself, "what would it even mean for reality to be a representation? Reality as a representation of Reality? That doesn't seem right? Is it possible that I am misunderstanding the question posed by the creator of the Debate?" Amarel, you seem to entirely miss this point about what the debate topic even is and where my argument is on the side of. So to be clear, I am submitting that "Yes, even with all of the tools, knowledge, and future progress of science, we are in fact limited to viewing the Universe from our stream of Consciousness produced by our brains that (though amazing) are extremely limited and have evolved to view the world in very specific (and simplistic) way." The entire weight of the progress of Science demonstrates this and not to understand this is tantamount to admitting that you are scientifically illiterate (which I am glad that you were honest enough to willing to concede your scientific illiteracy in part).
Now, to leave things on a bit of higher note with you, some of what you are discussing with " If your perception is a representation, you are not in a position to say anything about reality itself", is a very big topic in the Philosophy of Science and Neurophilosophy so you are actually down the right path of formulating a good question here if it were refined a bit. I am happy to tell you that questions along this train of that have been thought about in quite a lot of detail, continue to be thought of and there are countless books you could read about this if you are interested. However, the oddity of you raising this point is that it goes as a strong argument AGAINST humans being able to probe/see/perceive/get an accurate one-for-one style representation of the objective reality of the Universe, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM ARGUING FOR. So, thank you.
Hi , I see you're new here welcome . What evidence do you have regarding the existence of objective reality, do you not think it reasonable to accept it because it is the simplest possible explanation for reality.
The theory that we all exist in an objective reality is the best theory anyone has ever come up with to describe the conditions in which we appear to exist, so unless anyone comes up with a better theory I willstick with it
Hi Dermot, you make a very interesting point and I have some familiarity with, I know of a fair few scientists and philosophers that take the concept that "there is no single objective reality" seriously. I will try to relocate some of this work and post links from people who hold this view so I am glad that you brought this point up. For the purposes of this thread however, the truth behind this would not change my views as stated previously because there is some form of a reality that we are coming into contact with and we know that that is very different than what our brains process and project (eg. visually). Here is a link to a very short video that loosely describes what I am talking about from a prominent psychologist named Dan Airley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBU1K-HmP1M
In order to answer your original and bigger question, I'll have to do some "hw" and get back to you.
Also, Dermot, are you familiar with the Holographic Universe hypothesis? That seems like a fitting discussion for this thread.
Hi X , I found the video unconvincing I'm well aware of the placebo effect but a lot of what he states is flawed ; patients are given medicines through drips whilst asleep and placebo never comes into it the medication works , mostly .
Reality, is by necessity objective. Which means it continues existing regardless of your experience or desires. Evidence can be given, for such but unless you accept reality is objective would you accept it as such ?
Subjective reality doesn't exist. You can have subjective experience, but reality by my understanding is seen as an objective term.
Yes I've heard of the Holographic Universe Hypothesis and Nick Bostrums simulation theory ; are you a fan of George Berkeleys philosophy by any chance ?
If you wish to pretend to be new, you mustn’t act so familiar. It’s foolish to assume, without any knowledge of your opponent, that your opponent has “essentially no knowledge of modern science or scientific minded thinking”. Such a baseless (and poorly worded) assertion makes for a fallacious character attack rather than an argument.
It is not difficult for me, nor a discredit to my position, to say that I am not a neuroscientist and, as such, my knowledge of the topic is cursory. This is not problematic because having more than a cursory understanding is not at all necessary to the topic at hand. No point made here, by yourself or anyone else, requires the details of neuroscience for substantiation. Even you understand this as you correctly concede that it is more of a philosophical discussion. Now for what this discussion actually is.
One will not find much disagreement in the notion that we can only understand the world through the lens of our sense. That would be a weak debate topic. However, one will find a topic for debate in the notion that the world itself has “dependence on human consciousness” as stated in the OP description by Gypsee. This would then imply that the topic title means the world is literally a representation of our subjective projection, as I assumed.
If I have misunderstood the nature of the debate, I am in good company. My presumption if the topic at hand was re-enforced the statements from the following:
Dermot: “The world is your world and nothing that is not part of your representation can enter into it”.
Mint_tea: “The world is in no way dependent on human conciseness”
Grenache: “That is possible. It's equally possible that the world is the real here and now”
FactMachine: “Human consciousness is dependent on physical reality, it is impossible for human consciousness to create it's own reality”
Nomenclature: “In the field of quantum mechanics, observation directly affects the results of experiments”
TzarPepe: “The universe by definition is contingent on observation and postulation”
I may have missed someone, but I believe that is everyone who posted. They all have something in common, they are all discussing how or whether perception effects reality. They do not seem to think the debate is whether we experience the world directly or via sensory representation. I thought about informing everyone their lack of a degree in neuroscience (as unnecessary to the debate as it is) means they will have to except their ignorance and the superior position of xMathFanx. But then it occurred to me that since we are all on the same page, maybe it’s you who should fuck off. What do you think?
I thought it was pretty unfair to call you "scientifically illiterate " it's seems to me like an appeal to authority; he gave me the link to a video which was just appaling it was so error filled
In your response to him, you said that subjective reality doesn't exist. I'm wondering what you mean by that. Do you mean that I don't have experience (subjective reality doesn't exist)? Or rather do you mean that subjective reality cannot be said to be "reality" because it is not complete or necessarily accurate?
Ok , I said ......Subjective reality doesn't exist. You can have subjective experience, but reality by my understanding is seen as an objective term........
Yes , that's it , subjective reality does not seem to be reality in the strictest meaning of the term because it's seen through so many filters any one of which can modify a perception ot that "reality" .
Ok , I said ......Subjective reality doesn't exist. You can have subjective experience, but reality by my understanding is seen as an objective term........
Yes , that's it , subjective reality does not seem to be reality in the strictest meaning of the term because it's seen through so many filters any one of which can modify a perception ot that "reality" .
@Amarel, You stated, "It’s foolish to assume, without any knowledge of your opponent, that your opponent has “essentially no knowledge of modern science or scientific minded thinking”. Now, I want to pin you down to a specific point that has everything to do with the nature of our discussion. It is true that I have a limited interaction with you, I do not know your credentials in the form of books/textbooks you've read, lectures, documentaries, formal education, ect. However, what I stated was, "Your comments suggests such a profound ignorance of Neuroscience to such an extent that you don't seem to understand the ESTABLISHED FACT that you are NOT "seeing the world through your eyes" but rather your brain is taking in sensory information, processing it, and creating a projection" of the world.
Further, and this is the point that I want to pin you down to since you have not engaged it (as well as Dermot since he joined the discussion and claimed that he thought it was unfair that I described you as "Scientifically Illitereate"), when I said that humans evolved with brains that perceive "'color' which is NOT an intrinsic property of the Universe", what did you make of this? There a few thoughts could have potentially occurred to you when you read this and I'll briefly list a two of them that I want to address: 1. "I understand that color is not an intrinsic property of the universe and is rather a construction made by our brains when differing wavelengths of light make contact with our photoreceptors and this external sensory input is used to generate a projection of the world around us in such a way that it has been sensible/beneficial to us evolutionarily. So yes, your right, color is not 'real' in the Universe, what is real is light and energy. Also, I know that we are seeing an extremely tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (something like one ten-trillionth) of the entire range and are extremely limited to the "colors" we can see due to our Biological design. However, even though I concede that point, that is not the overall point I am making or the, as I take it to be, the overall point of this debate. Rather it is (Insert argument here)". 2. "I do not understand what xMathFanx means when he says "color is NOT an intrinsic property of the Universe? I am looking out at the world right now and see a blue sky, green leaves on trees, white clouds, orange oranges, ect. What would it even for color NOT to be "intrinsic" property of the Universe? There are colorblind people but that doesn't mean that red doesn't exist, it just means that that person can't identify it. I don't know what he is driving at, I don't see the relevance to this discussion and am going to ignore it."
Now, what I submit is that you are much closer the latter than the former (and this is key because it make all the difference). You are not operating on the premise that "of course Human beings are creating a representation of the world that only very loosely and limitedly maps onto what is "out there". I think that you take things at face value when you look out at the world and believe that "yes, I am receiving sensory information from the outside world and my brain is interpreting it, but what I am seeing/experiencing is quiet close to what is "out there" unless there is something wrong with my or someone else's brain (eg. colorblind, ect.).
Now, I very much hope that I am wrong and that you do understand what I am saying/driving when I discuss color as not being a real phenomena in the Universe but rather a subjective construction made by us as a biological system in an attempt to grasp at what is "out there", and that you are hopefully attempting to make a deeper Philosophical point inside of the framework that I just discussed at some length (btw, color is just one of a countless example of such phenomena that do not directly map on to what is "out there" and is rather a subjective construction by us Biological systems). If you do not understand this, than you are in fact "Scientifically Illiterate".
Also, it should be patently clear to see how the example of color demonstrates that we are seeing/experiencing a very limited and very flawed representation of what is "out there". Now, if you are on board with that, and you have a DEEPER philosophical argument that you are raising and would like me to engage with then okay (and in which case I apologize for calling you Scientifically Illiterate when in fact you may be more inclined to Philosophical Existential type think rather than Scientific mindedness). However, as I said, from reading you at length now my view of you is that you take the world more or less at face value and that you do not seem to understand that is egregiously off from what we know to be true as revealed through Neuroscience and other Sciences. This is also why I am claiming, and would be very surprised to find out if you have, ever read even 5 popular science type books from the local library or bookstore (let alone formally study Science through Textbooks, schooling, MITOpenCourseWare, ect. which in fact is NOT necessary to address this debate as you claimed I am was stating because the Science that I am putting on the table is VERY BASIC and if you watched even an hour long Documentary or a 15min TED talk on Neuroscience you could understand this ) because if you had, what I have been attempting to communicate with you would have made perfect sense all the way through and you would have addressed it from the start by stating something along the lines of, "Although I agree with you that we are projecting an image of reality via our brains that we know cannot be in any strict sense correct, however you are missing a deeper Philosophical point that (Insert argument here).
Your move.
P.S. Sorry about all the typos, I'm sure you can work around it.
Wow. And I thought I was condescending (That means I over explain things to people).
You really seem to be missing the point. I’ll try to be brief and I hope you find a lesson in this, to perhaps practice it in the future.
Let me take you way way back to a couple posts ago. The second and third sentences I typed to you should have saved you a lot of time. I said “Our view of the world is a representation, but the world itself is not. Other species see the world differently, they don't live in a different world”. Your main issue with me was not this matter we agree on which you have now prattled on about. Rather it was your contention that the debate is not about the world literally being a representation projected from our minds. I think there is plenty of cause to believe that the latter is exactly what this debate is about as I have explained.
As for the rest, you don’t seem to understand what my challenge was. If I were you I might claim that you have never heard the term philosophy or have an infants grasp of logic, but thankfully I am not you. The qualia of red correlates to a particular “wavelengths of light”. You know what that wavelength is called? Red. While there is nothing intrinsic in the universe about the qualia of color, color still exists in the universe (more than we see), as differing wavelengths of light. If there was no external correlate to your internal representation, then you would be correct in calling it an hallucination. But there is an external correlate. That’s the difference between perception and illusion.
Illusion is an incorrect perception. Perception is flawed; we can perceive this and work around it. If perception itself was an illusion, then any conclusions derived from our perception would be as illusory as the perceptions from which they derive. Including science. I expect you like to use words like illusion and hallucination because these terms are popular (and used just as incorrectly) among the intellectuals and scientists you look to and you simply haven’t thought critically about there use.
So much for brevity. I’ll leave you with a question. If perception is an illusion because our brain does not have direct contact with the world, what would constitute direct contact?
"If there was no external correlate to your internal representation, then you would be correct in calling it an hallucination. But there is an external correlate. That’s the difference between perception and illusion."
Even healthy, mature human brains construct a plausible vision of the world based on the external sensory information they are receive and create an imperfect vision, many times (always actually) filling in gaps that do not have an "external correlate". The best way to see this is through Optical Illusions, you may be familiar with the Blind Spot test which serves to illustrate this point.
Perception is flawed; we can perceive this and work around it. If perception itself was an illusion, then any conclusions derived from our perception would be as illusory as the perceptions from which they derive. Including science. I expect you like to use words like illusion and hallucination because these terms are popular (and used just as incorrectly) among the intellectuals and scientists you look to and you simply haven’t thought critically about there use.
Yes, perception is flawed. That does not therefore mean that perception is 100% flawed and is on par with a 100% illusionary/hallucinatory experience and thus are fully unable to trust our senses to determine anything true by the methods of science. Illusion is not a black and white, on/off switch type phenomena which is exactly why scientists and intellectuals (including Philosophers, Philosophers of the Mind, Neurophilosophers) use terms like hallucination, illusions, and/or simulation frequently (and have given it quite a great deal of thought). Again, optical illusions illustrate this point perfectly. As a side note, it is interesting that you are critique my lack of Philosophy on the matter when you are the one attempting to oversimplify the situation with an on/off switch by saying " If there was no external correlate to your internal representation, then you would be correct in calling it an hallucination. But there is an external correlate. That’s the difference between perception and illusion." Re-read argument above to see why that is truly lacking depth of understanding as well as my mention of the field of Neurology which examines this exact point.
Your main issue with me was not this matter we agree on which you have now prattled on about. Rather it was your contention that the debate is not about the world literally being a representation projected from our minds. I think there is plenty of cause to believe that the latter is exactly what this debate is about as I have explained.
As for this, you are correct. I disagree with you about the topic of the debate. However, if the topic of the debate is along the lines that you are describing then saying the world is "real" and a "representation" are separate issues that have overlapping parts (e.i. they are not mutually exclusive). I do not specifically align with either side of the debate here because it could go either way and there is a gap in knowledge/evidence. Under the Simulated Universe Hypothesis or The Holographic Universe or Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" or a "Matrix" type scenario (which is actually plausible and given quite some attention) or some other ideas or even a combination of some of these hypotheses is concievable, then "reality" would be a representation. Under a more "traditional" view, then your side of the argument would be correct. I'm not taking a side on that issue. And, I would like to your here your side in more full detail than just "Our view of the world is a representation, but the world itself is not", because if you are as Philosophically inclined as you claim to be (which I HIGHLY doubt) than you understand that there is much more that needs to be said about the matter than a blanket statement.
Btw, I'm not sure what you mean by "If you wish to pretend to be new". I am new here, I've been registered for 9 days and active for 2 or 3 days. That's public information on the site.
World is defined as "the earthly state of human existence". World is also defined as "the system of created things :universe".
Universe is defined as "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated".
There is a consistency here. The universe by definition is contingent on observation and postulation. The world has to do with the state of human.
We can only know as humans. That is taking into account a tool that is being used to measure. .
This is our world. The Universe. Creation.
That which exists independent of human consciousness is called by people "God" or "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". For me to communicate that at all, I have to use a representation.
The Ultimate Reality is God. God is The Most Perfect Image. God is The Word. You must believe that The Word is what it says it is. When I speak about "God", I am speaking of what that points to, what that really means. However, I am using the word "God". I have to use words to communicate, and words are by nature representations.
The world we live in is creation. It is creation because in order to reach our consciousness the world actual had to go through a process of abstraction starting from our senses, going through our bodies, being processed subconsciously, and the then finally reaching our consciousness. The process that leads to what we end up experiencing as our consciousness can be seen as 10,000 steps or more. Every instance where a piece of information is transmitted, the information is not cloned. There is corruption. Even at the step of sensory input, our senses are only intended to recognize a certain reality. The proof of this is in how alien hearing and seeing are from each other. They draw from the same source, but they perceive it radically different due to the major differences in how they draw from reality. What we experience is reality, but it is not ultimately real. The ultimate reality is that source that all of this world draws from.
The Holy God is grander than any reality we could observe or postulate. You might say, "Is not God a postulation?" In a sense you'd be correct, but to get what I'm saying you have to see that "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" intrinsically means that when we speak of "God", we are talking of something that is totally transcendent of the means we use to represent and communicate it. Creation is not of the nature to comprehend The Singularity.
It is important to grasp the essence of what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means. That is the spirit of truth. The holy spirit. So God is realized through the trinity, which states that God The Father(The Ultimate Reality) is known through His Son(The Word) with The Holy Spirit(The spirit of truth).
So you can know one thing for certain, as it is written on the hearts of all, and can be proven to all who accept it. Despite the relative nature of our world, God cuts through it and sanctifies the whole thing. You can be certain of God. Can't be certain of much else, if anything.
The philosopher Plato would agree with you that we are seeing only a representation of the world. Clearly we all have an idea of the world and this idealism means subjectivism explains reality. Perhaps this is less objective than natural science but useful in some philosophical understanding such as ethics.
Perhaps I'm not quite understanding. The world is in no way dependent on human conciseness. If humanity were to up and leave one day it would take very little time for the world to go back to as it was without us. Our own perceptions would be a representation of us on this planet but that, I believe, is it. I do think I am missing the point of the debate though, could you please clarify?
Mint_tea, I agree with everything you were saying. However, I came down on the opposite side of the debate as you because the debate topic tacitly presupposes that there is a physical objective reality outside of human consciousness. It is asking whether or not we can get a one-to-one style mapping representation of this physical reality in which we are able to so accurately perceive the Physical objective reality for what it is that the distinction between representation and reality breaks down to being non-existent. And as you pointed out, the world is not dependent on human consciousness, but we certainly are and due to this fact, we are highly constrained to viewing the world in a particular way which we no from the body of Science to be highly limited and that the world is very different then how it seems to us when taken at face-value.
It is asking whether or not we can get a one-to-one style mapping representation of this physical reality in which we are able to so accurately perceive the Physical objective reality for what it is that the distinction between representation and reality breaks down to being non-existent.
To sum it up, if I may presume. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? To further, does the tree even exist? The forest?
Is this an accurate summation?
we are highly constrained to viewing the world in a particular way
Apologies that I cherry-picked the sentence, but yes I agree. We are limited by our capacity in how we view the world and all around it.
@Mint_tea, Your example of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? To further, does the tree even exist? The forest?" is quite an interesting philosophical question. Now, as for the first part "does it make a sound", is interesting because the relationship between a sound and a person lies with the brain/nervous system of said person. Sound is our brain's interpretation of vibrations transmitted through the air (which are called sound waves). Therefore, the "sound waves" or vibrations in the air would exist, but no sound because that requires input to reach a person's brain and be interpreted accordingly.
Does the tree and/or the forest exists is a separate though very interesting question in its own right. If you happen to be familiar with the video game The Sims, when a person is not in a particular part of their house or town, than it does not exist (as in it is not part of the world at that time). It is not until they step into the frame that the new world exists and the old world goes. Now, this may be a very odd concept to wrap ones mind around, but the creator of the Sims (and others) believe in the strong possibility that we ourselves could be living in a computer simulation nearly analogous to a very advanced Sims style program with the technology that is running said program is so advanced that the Sim characters (being us) have become conscious of our existence. He further states that if you consider your life, much like the Sims, you are living within a specific framework at this moment. Now, you are assuming that the Grocery Store is there because every time you leave your home and go to the store there is a store there. But remember what I said earlier about the Sims world, other parts of town are non-existent until your Sim character enters the frame (this is consistent with how we live our lives and is a very thought provoking idea). The creator of the Sims has a lot more to say on the topic than I have mentioned here so i'll just provide a link if you want to look into it more yourself (I couldn't find great links but here's something. Btw, the Sims creator's name is Will Wright if you want to look him up yourself. He appears on the first episode of season 1 of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freedman titled Is There A Creator? talking about this particular topic):
I agree with everything you are saying about the world we perceive merely being the best that our senses can represent relative to the actual world. The problem is that the debate is titled "The world is a representation" which, while possible, seems unlikely. Some people will take the question literally, others, like yourself, will take the question as the OP intended (that our perception is not in line with the actual world). Both sides are correct and are talking past each other, despite the fact that everybody seems in agreement that an actual world exists and that our perception is merely our best representation of it.
@WinstonC. I agree with essentially everything you just stated. The only caveat I would insert is that this discussion is happening inside of a framework where most/overwhelming majority of people do not understand that the world that we have a vision of is an internal vision generated by our brain and NOT a movie screen type image in which "you" are somewhere inside of your head "seeing" the world through your eyes (which is what it intuitively feels like). Now, you (WinstonC), certainly appear to understand this (and so does the creator of this debate to my best guess), but there are countless polling results from Gallup, the National Science Fondation, ect. that demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of people do not (I live in the United States btw). This is a result that makes all the difference to the question, "Is the world a representation dependent on human consciousness". Also, just because someone states something to the effect, " the world we perceive merely being the best that our senses can represent relative to the actual world", is not in-it-of-itself enough to indicate that a person understands the point I made above and have talked about at some length now in my posts because saying "our perception of the world is constrained by both our senses and the sensory input from the external world" is consistent with BOTH the Cartesian Theatre AND the modern Scientific understanding (which is VERY different). A person who says this needs to elaborate a bit more to demonstrate that they understand the modern scientific understand.
So yes, your are definitely right that people who are taking the debate topic in separate ways are talking past each other (I am certainly guilty of this) and I think both topics are valid for debate. It is just, in my view, you need to develop the groundwork for in which we are having this discussion (which I still believe was Gypsee's intention (e.i. I think Gypsee understands what I have been talking about with what modern Neuroscience (and essentially all of Science) tells us that the face-value representation of the world people have is not how the world really is and created a debate in order to see if other people understand this fact because based on polling results most people do not).
This is why my back and forth with Amarel has been so extended because I want to see if he/she understands this point. Amarel invoked the term qualia in his/her last post to me in regards to the physical electromagnetic wavelength that corresponds to "red". I was very pleased to see this from Amarel as it is beginning to make ground his/her views from the topic of the debate for which I originally took it to mean. Now, it still is not clear if Amarel does or does not understand the larger point that I made in the beginning of this post and discussed at some length with him/her, which is "Do you understand that the brain is a physical object confined inside the complete darkness of your skull and is generating an image/feeling of reality based on how the neurons are firing (and whatever other physical processes/mechanisms may be responsible for conscious experience) rather than wavelengths hitting you retina (aka. sensory input from the outside world) and having it being interpreted as "red" by looking out at the world by a kind of "Movie Screen" type view of consciousness (known by the technical name as The Cartesian Theatre)? I have tried to pin Amarel down to this point specifically and there is reason to believe that he/she is not getting it as evidenced by:
1. Objects to the usage of the terms "simulation", "constrained hallucination", "illusion", ect. (Which our stream of consciousness, in a very real sense, IS all of these things to varying degrees which is an important point. That is why Neuroscientists, Psychologists, Philosophers of the Mind, ect. refer to it in such a way. Not because as Amarel argues, "I expect you like to use words like illusion and hallucination because these terms are popular (and used just as incorrectly) among the intellectuals and scientists you look to and you simply haven’t thought critically about there use.. They are using these terms PERCISELY because they HAVE thought about it in quite some detail (as they frequently discuss)).
2. Amarel states that he has quite a limited understanding of Neuroscience
3. I have brought this precise point up to Amarel a number of times now and he/she has not said anything that indicates that they understand the modern scientific understanding rather than the Cartesian Theatre (although I am glad to say, Amarel's use of the term "qualia" suggests that she/he has at minimum some depth of Philosophical insight/understanding of the matter. I just want to see Amarel to go all the way with it if they are capable of doing so as she/he claims).
4. Amarel has stated that " Let me take you way way back to a couple posts ago. The second and third sentences I typed to you should have saved you a lot of time. I said “Our view of the world is a representation, but the world itself is not. Other species see the world differently, they don't live in a different world”. Your main issue with me was not this matter we agree on which you have now prattled on about". This as I have explained, is not sufficient information to demonstrate that Amarel agree or are "on the same page" about the scientific point because it fails to address the dichotomy that I have discussed many times now. Amarel is failing to address the specific point I am making even when I'm saying "address this point" and does not seem to realize it (e.i. consistent with a person who does not understand that there is a dichotomy to address and would thus need to elaborate on his point more before we can establish that we agree).
I would like to see a few sentences from Amarel that directly confronts this point in his/her own words and bears out that he/she does in fact understand this (if they do understand it) and given at least one additional example aside from color and the flavor of optical illusions that I have already mentioned to illustrate this point. Otherwise, in my view, given how the debate topic is worded, one cannot simply bypass the Scientific point and jump straight to the deeper Philosophical point without first addressing the more basic question in the Scientific point (because skipping the Scientific points given the poll results of the overwhelming majority of peoples general ignorance on the topic it is reasonable to assume said person is skipping over the Scientific point because they do not realize that there is a point to make).
Now, the question of whether "objective reality" is a "representation" or in fact is "real" is a very interesting Philosophical question that you, (WinstonC), rightly point out is "possible", however we simply do not know and it actually is not all that unlikely (it is an idea taken with some real seriousness in fact). There are hypothesis/ideas that suggest this (of which I have named a few in another post).
Thanks for your commenting and clarification WinstonC
It's equally possible that the world is the real here and now and instead of overthinking it we should just eat and live and love and make the best of it because it will be over faster than you realize.
I would argue that in a tie of one verses the other your safe bet is the second scenario. Because that's the one you can see and feel and experience on a personal level. The folks believing it's all just symbolic or virtual are basing that on human philosophies and history is stuffed with beliefs people used to hold dear which we now think are crap. And if instead you think the safe bet is living by the religious belief, just in case you have to for eternal salvation, then you also probably need to do a human sacrifice, dance for the Thunderbird, and arrange to be mummified, in case the beliefs tied to those turn out to be the truth.
Human consciousness is dependent on physical reality, it is impossible for human consciousness to create it's own reality because every life form on this planet including humans has to adapt to an objective cause and effect world. When a flying asparagus tailed frog monkey throws a plate of banana chips at your face, how can you deny that a plate of banana chips is flying at your face? if you duck maybe they'll miss, if you just stand there then you will be hit with dry banana.
it is impossible for human consciousness to create it's own reality
In the field of quantum mechanics, observation directly affects the results of experiments. For example an electron will only behave as a point particle when it is observed.