# Is the universe real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594 "2005-02-23T22:15:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/281 "2005-03-02T22:54:19Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **otherwise** , it’s starting to look like the other thread might be the more appropriate place for _all_ of this,… No problem, we can take it to the other thread… work’s heating up again anyway, so I won’t be able to visit the board as much as I have the last couple of days. > [@](#): > > Well, according to Turing, software can be the _equivalent_ of hardware, and vice versa, and so I don’t think the distinction is fundamental (although it’s certainly interesting). I keep referencing that simulation argument because I recognise that whatever _seems like_ “hardware” may not be. Sure, software can be the equivalent of hardware, but what does _that_ software run on? Hardware? What aren’t I getting? It keeps sounding to me like it’s turtles all the way down. > [@](#): > > As I ask in the other thread, _could it be_ that short-term memory activity with the accompanied cross-referencing and filtering, as moderated by chemical emotion and encoded via language **is** what ‘experience’ **is**? It sometimes seems like we could explain the weather in terms of component elements to a level comparable to anything that has ever been explained, and yet someone can still say “Yeah yeah yeah, but _why_ does weather emerge from water and energy?”. But that still hasn’t addressed how, if experience is short-term memory (plus auxiliary goodies), the whole thing got boot-strapped in the first place. What was the first experience/memory? How can experience be memory if what we remember are experiences? > [@](#): > > Because there is no _memory access_ mechanism therein, I’d say - those question skirt very close to what I’d call category errors. “Why aren’t some configurations of atoms _loud_ triangles or _green_ thunderclaps?” Why _isn’t_ there any memory access mechanism therein? A hurricane is a temporarily stable pattern of frenetic atomic activity. How is this fundamentally different than your model of consciousness? ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/282 "2005-03-02T23:00:48Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > …but I see no way to make sense of what intersubjectivity I see without influence of the objective. ?? I was under the impression that you thought “objective” was essentially a misnomer for “inter-subjective”. Could you give me a description of what “objective” means to you? > [@](#): > > (as I _always_ ask: who is the illusion fooling?). Exactly! ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/283 "2005-03-02T23:26:15Z")
It is true that I feel most people say “objective” when they mean “intersubjective,” yes. In fact, that’s been most of my contribution to this thread, trying to stop us from slyly switching intersubjective concepts for objective fact. But without the objective, it is hard to suggest why we might ever revise our opinions of anything. I like to think of it like several blind people travelling through a labyrinth. The labyrinth guides us, and we might form some picture of its design by thinking of it in our own terms. What we come to know is the labyrinth by any turn of phrase, but our minds did not create it, nor did our agreement determine its properties. But its properties are as they are because of our interaction with it, because of what we find important; it is the interaction between us and the objects of our intention that determine “reality”–not just the objects, and not just our thoughts. I always liked Wittgenstein’s comment about poking something with a stick: “I feel something rough and hard _over there._” How philosophically complicated everyday life is [not]. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/284 "2005-03-02T23:42:08Z")
**Sentient** , don’t bother answering my last question. Liberal has just asked it more cogently on the other thread. (#38) This two threads raising similar issues is getting to be a real mess. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/285 "2005-03-02T23:58:55Z")
> [@o-w](#): > > what does that software run on? Hardware? Yes - that’s my position: our neuronal circuitry is the equivalent of electronic circuitry on which computer software runs. > [@](#): > > What was the first experience/memory? Excellent question: as was asked in the other thread, does an amoeba have memory? An insect certainly does. We must examine the very simplest forms of anything we could reasonably call ‘cognition’. > [@](#): > > Why isn’t there any memory access mechanism therein? Could you help me speculate how a hurricane could have what you’d call ‘memory’? Over there, **Lib** asked something similar about a pressure gauge: I struggled to propose anything like ‘memory’ for it also - the best I could do was that high pressures might _break_ it. > [@](#): > > How is this fundamentally different than your model of consciousness? I’d suggest there is a far better example which illustrates the model: an awake human and a dead one. I seek to explain why one bunch of atoms is conscious but the other isn’t, and “working memory” seems to me to be a promising basis. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/286 "2005-03-03T00:57:33Z")
With respect to whom the illusion is fooling, I think “fooling” is too loaded a term, as though the illusion is making a fool out of we who endure it. Speaking as someone who admits to an awareness of the illusion, I do not feel fooled. It is an illusion, but it is capable of attaining significance. Specifically, it attains significance whenever a moral decision is made. Consider this mis-en-scene: A little old lady is standing on a street corner as you approach. Physically speaking, that is a description of an arrangement of atoms. Somehow, a gestalt arises (oh, yes it does, Sentient ;)), and out of the quantum milieu, a lady arises. Now, essentially, you and she are nothing but composites of electromagnetic fields. You are amoral bags of water suspended in gravity. But if you become aware of her _and make a moral decision with respect to her_, then suddenly the illusion attains significance. Will you rape her? Mug her? Help her? Guide her across the street? Carry her bags? Steal her bags? Ignore her? Yell at her? Flash your penis at her? Tear her blouse? Push her down? Laugh at her? Cry with her? And on and on and on. The purpose of the illusion is to permit you to act out your free moral will. There is no other way that I know of to implement free will than to place free moral agents into an amoral context where they may make moral decisions. These decisions are coming from the _real_ us, the us made of spirit, the us that is eternal, essential, and necessary. The brain merely carries out what the essential agent has decided. ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/287 "2005-03-04T20:13:21Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Just because the behavior of an entity is not consistent with what we expect in the behavior of a _conscious_ entity, or we do not share a method of communication, I don’t think we can make the leap to: this entity is not conscious (for instance, by this litmus I would be forced to conclude that a person I see lying quietly in a locked, soundproof room is not conscious). > > Remember, according to **Sentient** , _we_ are just patterns of atoms. In lieu of an explanation as to why our pattern of atoms is “special”, I can’t see why the pattern of atoms in a hurricane shouldn’t be conscious too. oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification **other-wise**. ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/288 "2005-03-08T18:49:41Z")
From posts 272-273: How does our essence interact with this distribution? Is there some metaphysical-physical adapter that somehow allows my essence to influence or control the shell that is typing this post? Also, why is my essence associated with this shell only? > [@Liberal](#): > > With respect to whom the illusion is fooling, I think “fooling” is too loaded a term, as though the illusion is making a fool out of we who endure it. Speaking as someone who admits to an awareness of the illusion, I do not feel fooled. It is an illusion, but it is capable of attaining significance. Specifically, it attains significance whenever a moral decision is made. > > Consider this mis-en-scene: A little old lady is standing on a street corner as you approach. > > Physically speaking, that is a description of an arrangement of atoms. Somehow, a gestalt arises (oh, yes it does, Sentient ;)), and out of the quantum milieu, a lady arises. Now, essentially, you and she are nothing but composites of electromagnetic fields. You are amoral bags of water suspended in gravity. But if you become aware of her _and make a moral decision with respect to her_, then suddenly the illusion attains significance. > > Will you rape her? Mug her? Help her? Guide her across the street? Carry her bags? Steal her bags? Ignore her? Yell at her? Flash your penis at her? Tear her blouse? Push her down? Laugh at her? Cry with her? And on and on and on. > > The purpose of the illusion is to permit you to act out your free moral will. There is no other way that I know of to implement free will than to place free moral agents into an amoral context where they may make moral decisions. These decisions are coming from the _real_ us, the us made of spirit, the us that is eternal, essential, and necessary. The brain merely carries out what the essential agent has decided. It seems that science is slowing understanding more and more the nature of our brains, how they work, and how they evolved. If that is the case, wouldn’t it seem more likely that _gestalt_ arises from our own evolutionary nature to find patterns around us rather than factoring in a metaphysical essence. People “see” patterns in a random distribution, even when none exist because that is what we have become. We create our own _gestalt_ because of our macro pattern recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/289 "2005-03-08T20:28:28Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > From posts 272-273: How does our essence interact with this distribution? Is there some metaphysical-physical adapter that somehow allows my essence to influence or control the shell that is typing this post? No one knows. Lately, there has come to light _some_ evidence that _possibly_, man’s spiritual essence and his physical essence are linked _somehow_ through the brains temporal lobes, specifically the limbic system. Read this book by neurological researcher, VS Ramachandran: [Phantoms in the Brain](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688172172/qid=1110314414/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-8220507-3980163?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). In particular, see the chapter titled “God and the Limbic System” > [@](#): > > Also, why is my essence associated with this shell only? A subjective reference frame is necessary for the exercise of freewill. If other reference frames (other people’s consciousnesses) were able to invade yours, you could not be said to be making decisions on your own. > [@](#): > > It seems that science is slowing understanding more and more the nature of our brains, how they work, and how they evolved. If that is the case, wouldn’t it seem more likely that _gestalt_ arises from our own evolutionary nature to find patterns around us rather than factoring in a metaphysical essence. People “see” patterns in a random distribution, even when none exist because that is what we have become. We create our own _gestalt_ because of our macro pattern recognition. Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but the problem remains that something non-physical (the gestalt) arises. ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/290 "2005-03-09T23:34:22Z")
Could it be possible that the gestalt is merely _perceived_ and does not exist at all. I mean, people claim to see patterns in finite random distributions when, by definition, no pattern exists (no cite but I am fairly confident that I have read this somewhere). I know this is a rehash of what I posted previously but I think I phrased it wrong. Let me try again: A gestalt does not exist. Rather, we perceive something that is not there and because our brains have developed to see patterns, the physical concept of a perceived gestalt is created. The book is being ordered tonight so if this is all addressed in it, nevermind then. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/291 "2005-03-10T11:06:48Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > Could it be possible that the gestalt is merely _perceived_ and does not exist at all. I suppose so, but then materialists might maintain that perception is physical and therefore real (existing objectively). Then again, they might likely say that the gestalt IS the perception. But if so, they are acknowledging a subjective existence, which means it isn’t real. And finally, existence is trivial. A thing that exists without essence is a no-thing. It has no qualities, no attributes, and not even bounds of existence. To exist, either objectively or subjectively, might well amount to nothing more than being a set of variables in the probability distribution. > [@](#): > > The book is being ordered tonight so if this is all addressed in it, nevermind then. I think you’ll enjoy it. Ramachandran’s experiments are beautifully eloquent in their simplicity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=14)